{"instructions": ["Please help me summarize this government report."], "outputs": ["The President of the United States has available certain powers that may be exercised in the event that the nation is threatened by crisis, exigency, or emergency circumstances (other than natural disasters, war, or near-war situations). Such powers may be stated explicitly or implied by the Constitution, assumed by the Chief Executive to be permissible constitutionally, or inferred from or specified by statute. Through legislation, Congress has made a great many delegations of authority in this regard over the past 230 years.\nThere are, however, limits and restraints upon the President in his exercise of emergency powers. With the exception of the habeas corpus clause, the Constitution makes no allowance for the suspension of any of its provisions during a national emergency. Disputes over the constitutionality or legality of the exercise of emergency powers are judicially reviewable. Both the judiciary and Congress, as co-equal branches, can restrain the executive regarding emergency powers. So can public opinion. Since 1976, the President has been subject to certain procedural formalities in utilizing some statutorily delegated emergency authority.\nThe National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a71601-1651) eliminated or modified some statutory grants of emergency authority, required the President to formally declare the existence of a national emergency and to specify what statutory authority activated by the declaration would be used, and provided Congress a means to countermand the President's declaration and the activated authority being sought. The development of this regulatory statute and subsequent declarations of national emergency are reviewed in this report."], "input": "F ederal law provides a variety of powers for the President to use in response to crisis, exigency, or emergency circumstances threatening the nation. They are not limited to military or war situations. Some of these authorities, deriving from the Constitution or statutory law, are continuously available to the President with little or no qualification. Others\u2014statutory delegations from Congress\u2014exist on a standby basis and remain dormant until the President formally declares a national emergency. Congress may modify, rescind, or render dormant such delegated emergency authority.\nUntil the crisis of World War I, Presidents utilized emergency powers at their own discretion. Proclamations announced the exercise of exigency authority. During World War I and thereafter, Chief Executives had available to them a growing body of standby emergency authority that became operative upon the issuance of a proclamation declaring a condition of national emergency. Sometimes such proclamations confined the matter of crisis to a specific policy sphere, and sometimes they placed no limitation whatsoever on the pronouncement. These activations of standby emergency authority remained acceptable practice until the era of the Vietnam War. In 1976, Congress curtailed this practice with the passage of the National Emergencies Act.\n\n\tBackground and History\n\nThe exercise of emergency powers had long been a concern of the classical political theorists, including the 18 th -century English philosopher John Locke, who had a strong influence upon the Founding Fathers in the United States. A preeminent exponent of a government of laws and not of men, Locke argued that occasions may arise when the executive must exert a broad discretion in meeting special exigencies or \"emergencies\" for which the legislative power provided no relief or existing law granted no necessary remedy. He did not regard this prerogative as limited to wartime or even to situations of great urgency. It was sufficient if the \"public good\" might be advanced by its exercise.\nEmergency powers were first expressed prior to the actual founding of the Republic. Between 1775 and 1781, the Continental Congress passed a series of acts and resolves that count as the first expressions of emergency authority. These instruments dealt almost exclusively with the prosecution of the Revolutionary War.\nAt the Constitutional Convention of 1787, emergency powers, as such, failed to attract much attention during the course of debate over the charter for the new government. It may be argued, however, that the granting of emergency powers by Congress is implicit in its Article I, Section 8, authority to \"provide for the common Defense and general Welfare;\" the commerce clause; its war, armed forces, and militia powers; and the \"necessary and proper\" clause empowering it to make such laws as are required to fulfill the executions of \"the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.\"\nThere is a tradition of constitutional interpretation that has resulted in so-called implied powers, which may be invoked in order to respond to an emergency situation. Locke seems to have anticipated this practice. Furthermore, Presidents have occasionally taken an emergency action that they assumed to be constitutionally permissible. Thus, in the American governmental experience, the exercise of emergency powers has been somewhat dependent upon the Chief Executive's view of the presidential office.\nPerhaps the President who most clearly articulated a view of his office in conformity with the Lockean position was Theodore Roosevelt. Describing what came to be called the \"stewardship\" theory of the presidency, Roosevelt wrote of his \"insistence upon the theory that the executive power was limited only by specific restrictions and prohibitions appearing in the Constitution or imposed by the Congress under its constitutional powers.\" It was his view \"that every executive officer, and above all every executive officer in high position, was a steward of the people,\" and he \"declined to adopt the view that what was imperatively necessary for the Nation could not be done by the President unless he could find some specific authorization to do it.\" Indeed, it was Roosevelt's belief that, for the President, \"it was not only his right but his duty to do anything that the needs of the Nation demanded unless such action was forbidden by the Constitution or by the laws.\"\nOpposed to this view of the presidency was Roosevelt's former Secretary of War, William Howard Taft, his personal choice for and actual successor as Chief Executive. He viewed the presidential office in more limited terms, writing \"that the President can exercise no power which cannot be fairly and reasonably traced to some specific grant of power or justly implied and included within such express grant as proper and necessary to its exercise.\" In his view, such a \"specific grant must be either in the Federal Constitution or in an act of Congress passed in pursuance thereof. There is,\" Taft concluded, \"no undefined residuum of power which he can exercise because it seems to him to be in the public interest.\"\nBetween these two views of the presidency lie various gradations of opinion, resulting in perhaps as many conceptions of the office as there have been holders. One authority has summed up the situation in the following words:\nEmergency powers are not solely derived from legal sources. The extent of their invocation and use is also contingent upon the personal conception which the incumbent of the Presidential office has of the Presidency and the premises upon which he interprets his legal powers. In the last analysis, the authority of a President is largely determined by the President himself.\nApart from the Constitution, but resulting from its prescribed procedures, there are statutory grants of power for emergency conditions. The President is authorized by Congress to take some special or extraordinary action, ostensibly to meet the problems of governing effectively in times of exigency. Sometimes these laws are of only temporary duration. The Economic Stabilization Act of 1970, for example, allowed the President to impose certain wage and price controls for about three years before it expired automatically in 1974. The statute gave the President emergency authority to address a crisis in the nation's economy.\nMany of these laws are continuously maintained or permanently available for the President's ready use in responding to an emergency. The Defense Production Act, originally adopted in 1950 to prioritize and regulate the manufacture of military material, is an example of this type of statute.\nThere are various standby laws that convey special emergency powers once the President formally declares a national emergency activating them. In 1973, a Senate special committee studying emergency powers published a compilation identifying some 470 provisions of federal law delegating to the executive extraordinary authority in time of national emergency. The vast majority of them are of the standby kind\u2014dormant until activated by the President. However, formal procedures for invoking these authorities, accounting for their use, and regulating their activation and application were established by the National Emergencies Act of 1976.\n\n\tThe Emergency Concept\n\nRelying upon constitutional authority or congressional delegations made at various times over the past 230 years, the President of the United States may exercise certain powers in the event that the continued existence of the nation is threatened by crisis, exigency, or emergency circumstances. What is a national emergency?\nIn the simplest understanding of the term, the dictionary defines emergency as \"an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action.\" In the midst of the crisis of the Great Depression, a 1934 Supreme Court majority opinion characterized an emergency in terms of urgency and relative infrequency of occurrence as well as equivalence to a public calamity resulting from fire, flood, or like disaster not reasonably subject to anticipation. An eminent constitutional scholar, the late Edward S. Corwin, explained emergency conditions as being those that \"have not attained enough of stability or recurrency to admit of their being dealt with according to rule.\" During congressional committee hearings on emergency powers in 1973, a political scientist described an emergency in the following terms: \"It denotes the existence of conditions of varying nature, intensity and duration, which are perceived to threaten life or well-being beyond tolerable limits.\" Corwin also indicated it \"connotes the existence of conditions suddenly intensifying the degree of existing danger to life or well-being beyond that which is accepted as normal.\"\nThere are at least four aspects of an emergency condition. The first is its temporal character: An emergency is sudden, unforeseen, and of unknown duration. The second is its potential gravity: An emergency is dangerous and threatening to life and well-being. The third, in terms of governmental role and authority, is the matter of perception: Who discerns this phenomenon? The Constitution may be guiding on this question, but it is not always conclusive. Fourth, there is the element of response: By definition, an emergency requires immediate action but is also unanticipated and, therefore, as Corwin notes, cannot always be \"dealt with according to rule.\" From these simple factors arise the dynamics of national emergency powers. These dynamics can be seen in the history of the exercise of emergency powers.\n\n\tLaw and Practice\n\nIn 1792, residents of western Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the Carolinas began forcefully opposing the collection of a federal excise tax on whiskey. Anticipating rebellious activity, Congress enacted legislation providing for the calling forth of the militia to suppress insurrections and repel invasions. Section 3 of this statute required that a presidential proclamation be issued to warn insurgents to cease their activity. If hostilities persisted, the militia could be dispatched. On August 17, 1794, President Washington issued such a proclamation. The insurgency continued. The President then took command of the forces organized to put down the rebellion.\nHere was the beginning of a pattern of policy expression and implementation regarding emergency powers. Congress legislated extraordinary or special authority for discretionary use by the President in a time of emergency. In issuing a proclamation, the Chief Executive notified Congress that he was making use of this power and also apprised other affected parties of his emergency action.\nOver the next 100 years, Congress enacted various permanent and standby laws for responding largely to military, economic, and labor emergencies. During this span of years, however, the exercise of emergency powers by President Abraham Lincoln brought the first great dispute over the authority and discretion of the Chief Executive to engage in emergency actions.\nBy the time of Lincoln's inauguration (March 4, 1861), seven states of the lower South had announced their secession from the Union; the Confederate provisional government had been established (February 4, 1861); Jefferson Davis had been elected (February 9, 1861) and installed as president of the confederacy (February 18, 1861); and an army was being mobilized by the secessionists. Lincoln had a little over two months to consider his course of action.\nWhen the new President assumed office, Congress was not in session. For reasons of his own, Lincoln delayed calling a special meeting of the legislature but soon ventured into its constitutionally designated policy sphere. On April 19, he issued a proclamation establishing a blockade on the ports of the secessionist states, \"a measure hitherto regarded as contrary to both the Constitution and the law of nations except when the government was embroiled in a declared, foreign war.\" Congress had not been given an opportunity to consider a declaration of war.\nThe next day, the President ordered the addition of 19 vessels to the navy \"for purposes of public defense.\" A short time later, the blockade was extended to the ports of Virginia and North Carolina.\nBy a proclamation of May 3, Lincoln ordered that the regular army be enlarged by 22,714 men, that navy personnel be increased by 18,000, and that 42,032 volunteers be accommodated for three-year terms of service. The directive antagonized many Representatives and Senators, because Congress is specifically authorized by Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution \"to raise and support armies.\"\nIn his July message to the newly assembled Congress, Lincoln suggested, \"These measures, whether strictly legal or not, were ventured upon under what appeared to be a popular and a public necessity, trusting then, as now, that Congress would readily ratify them. It is believed,\" he wrote, \"that nothing has been done beyond the constitutional competency of Congress.\"\nCongress subsequently did legislatively authorize, and thereby approve, the President's actions regarding his increasing armed forces personnel and would do the same later concerning some other questionable emergency actions. In the case of Lincoln, the opinion of scholars and experts is that \"neither Congress nor the Supreme Court exercised any effective restraint upon the President.\" The emergency actions of the Chief Executive were either unchallenged or approved by Congress and were either accepted or\u2014because of almost no opportunity to render judgment\u2014went largely without notice by the Supreme Court. The President made a quick response to the emergency at hand, a response that Congress or the courts might have rejected in law but, nonetheless, had been made in fact and with some degree of popular approval. Similar controversy would arise concerning the emergency actions of Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Both men exercised extensive emergency powers with regard to world hostilities, and Roosevelt also used emergency authority to deal with the Great Depression. Their emergency actions, however, were largely supported by statutory delegations and a high degree of approval on the part of both Congress and the public.\nDuring the Wilson and Roosevelt presidencies, a major procedural development occurred in the exercise of emergency powers\u2014use of a proclamation to declare a national emergency and thereby activate all standby statutory provisions delegating authority to the President during a national emergency. The first such national emergency proclamation was issued by President Wilson on February 5, 1917. Promulgated on the authority of a statute establishing the U.S. Shipping Board, the proclamation concerned water transportation policy. It was statutorily terminated, along with a variety of other wartime measures, on March 3, 1921.\nPresident Franklin D. Roosevelt issued the next national emergency proclamation some 48 hours after assuming office. Proclaimed March 6, 1933, on the somewhat questionable authority of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, the proclamation declared a \"bank holiday\" and halted a major class of financial transactions by closing the banks. Congress subsequently gave specific statutory support for the Chief Executive's action with the passage of the Emergency Banking Act on March 9. Upon signing this legislation into law, the President issued a second banking proclamation, based upon the authority of the new law, continuing the bank holiday until it was determined that banking institutions were capable of conducting business in accordance with new banking policy.\nNext, on September 8, 1939, President Roosevelt promulgated a proclamation of \"limited\" national emergency, though the qualifying term had no meaningful legal significance. Almost two years later, on May 27, 1941, he issued a proclamation of \"unlimited\" national emergency. This action, however, did not actually make any important new powers available to the Chief Executive in addition to those activated by the 1939 proclamation. The President's purpose in making the second proclamation was largely to apprise the American people of the worsening conflict in Europe and growing tensions in Asia.\nThese two war-related proclamations of a general condition of national emergency remained operative until 1947, when certain of the provisions of law they had activated were statutorily rescinded. Then, in 1951, Congress terminated the declaration of war against Germany. In the spring of the following year, the Senate ratified the treaty of peace with Japan. Because these actions marked the end of World War II for the United States, legislation was required to keep certain emergency provisions in effect. Initially, the Emergency Powers Interim Continuation Act temporarily maintained this emergency authority. It was subsequently supplanted by the Emergency Powers Continuation Act, which kept selected emergency delegations in force until August 1953. By proclamation in April 1952, President Harry S. Truman terminated the 1939 and 1941 national emergency declarations, leaving operative only those emergency authorities continued by statutory specification.\nPresident Truman's 1952 termination, however, specifically exempted a December 1950 proclamation of national emergency he had issued in response to hostilities in Korea. This condition of national emergency would remain in force and unimpaired well into the era of the Vietnam War.\nTwo other proclamations of national emergency would also be promulgated before Congress once again turned its attention to these matters. Faced with a postal strike, President Richard Nixon declared a national emergency in March 1970, thereby gaining permission to use units of the Ready Reserve to assist in moving the mail. President Nixon proclaimed a second national emergency in August 1971 to control the balance of payments flow by terminating temporarily certain trade agreement provisos and imposing supplemental duties on some imported goods.\n\n\tCongressional Concerns\n\nIn the years following the conclusion of U.S. armed forces involvement in active military conflict in Korea, occasional expressions of concern were heard in Congress regarding the continued existence of President Truman's 1950 national emergency proclamation long after the conditions prompting its issuance had disappeared. There was some annoyance that the President was retaining extraordinary powers intended only for a time of genuine emergency and a feeling that the Chief Executive was thwarting the legislative intent of Congress by continuously failing to terminate the declared national emergency.\nGrowing public and congressional displeasure with the President's exercise of his war powers and deepening U.S. involvement in hostilities in Vietnam prompted interest in a variety of related matters. For Senator Charles Mathias, interest in the question of emergency powers developed out of U.S. involvement in Vietnam and the incursion into Cambodia. Together with Senator Frank Church, he sought to establish a Senate special committee to study the implications of terminating the 1950 proclamation of national emergency that was being used to prosecute the Vietnam War \"to consider problems which might arise as the result of the termination and to consider what administrative or legislative actions might be necessary.\" Such a panel was initially chartered by S.Res. 304 as the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency in June 1972, but it did not begin operations before the end of the year.\nWith the convening of the 93 rd Congress in 1973, the special committee was approved again with S.Res. 9 . Upon exploring the subject matter of national emergency powers, however, the mission of the special committee became more burdensome. There was not just one proclamation of national emergency in effect but four such instruments, issued in 1933, 1950, 1970, and 1971. The United States was in a condition of national emergency four times over, and with each proclamation, the whole collection of statutorily delegated emergency powers was activated. Consequently, in 1974, with S.Res. 242 , the study panel was rechartered as the Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers to reflect its focus upon matters larger than the 1950 emergency proclamation. Its final mandate was provided by S.Res. 10 in the 94 th Congress, although its termination date was necessarily extended briefly in 1976 by S.Res. 370 . Senators Church and Mathias co-chaired the panel.\nThe Special Committee on National Emergencies and Delegated Emergency Powers produced various studies during its existence. After scrutinizing the U . S . Code and uncodified statutory emergency powers, the panel identified 470 provisions of federal law that delegated extraordinary authority to the executive in time of national emergency. Not all of them required a declaration of national emergency to be operative, but they were, nevertheless, extraordinary grants. The special committee also found that no process existed for automatically terminating the four outstanding national emergency proclamations. Thus, the panel began developing legislation containing a formula for regulating emergency declarations in the future and otherwise adjusting the body of statutorily delegated emergency powers by abolishing some provisions, relegating others to permanent status, and continuing others in a standby capacity. The panel also began preparing a report offering its findings and recommendations regarding the state of national emergency powers in the nation.\n\n\tThe National Emergencies Act\n\nThe special committee, in July 1974, unanimously recommended legislation establishing a procedure for the presidential declaration and congressional regulation of a national emergency. The proposal also modified various statutorily delegated emergency powers. In arriving at this reform measure, the panel consulted with various executive branch agencies regarding the significance of existing emergency statutes, recommendations for legislative action, and views as to the repeal of some provisions of emergency law.\nThis recommended legislation was introduced by Senator Church for himself and others on August 22, 1974, and became S. 3957 . It was reported from the Senate Committee on Government Operations on September 30 without public hearings or amendment. The bill was subsequently discussed on the Senate floor on October 7, when it was amended and passed.\nAlthough a version of the reform legislation had been introduced in the House on September 16, becoming H.R. 16668 , the Committee on the Judiciary, to which the measure was referred, did not have an opportunity to consider either that bill or the Senate-adopted version due to the press of other business\u2014chiefly the impeachment of President Nixon and the nomination of Nelson Rockefeller to be Vice President of the United States. Thus, the National Emergencies Act failed to be considered on the House floor before the final adjournment of the 93 rd Congress.\nWith the convening of the next Congress, the proposal was introduced in the House on February 27, 1975, becoming H.R. 3884 , and in the Senate on March 6, becoming S. 977 . House hearings occurred in March and April before the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental Relations of the Committee on the Judiciary. The bill was subsequently marked up and, on April 15, was reported in amended form to the full committee on a 4-0 vote. On May 21, the Committee on the Judiciary, on a voice vote, reported the bill with technical amendments. During the course of House debate on September 4, there was agreement to both the committee amendments and a floor amendment providing that national emergencies end automatically one year after their declaration unless the President informs Congress and the public of a continuation. The bill was then passed on a 388-5 yea and nay vote and sent to the Senate, where it was referred to the Committee on Government Operations.\nThe Senate Committee on Government Operations held a hearing on H.R. 3884 on February 25, 1976, the bill was subsequently reported on August 26 with one substantive and several technical amendments. The following day, the amended bill was passed and returned to the House. On August 31, the House agreed to the Senate amendments, clearing the proposal for President Gerald Ford's signature on September 14.\nIn its final report, issued in May 1976, the special committee concluded \"by reemphasizing that emergency laws and procedures in the United States have been neglected for too long, and that Congress must pass the National Emergencies Act to end a potentially dangerous situation.\" \nOther issues identified by the special committee as deserving attention in the future, however, did not fare so well. The panel, for example, was hopeful that standing committees of both houses of Congress would review statutory emergency power provisions within their respective jurisdictions with a view to the continued need for, and possible adjustment of, such authority. Actions in this regard were probably not as ambitious as the special committee expected. A title of the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950 granting the President or Congress power to declare a civil defense emergency in the event of an attack on the United States occurred or was anticipated expired in June 1974 after the House Committee on Rules failed to report a measure continuing the statute.\nA provision of emergency law was refined in May 1976. Legislation was enacted granting the President the authority to order certain selected members of an armed services reserve component to active duty without a declaration of war or national emergency. Previously, such an activation of military reserve personnel had been limited to a \"time of national emergency declared by the President\" or \"when otherwise authorized by law.\"\nAnother refinement of emergency law occurred in 1977 when action was completed on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Reform legislation containing this statute modified a provision of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, authorizing the President to regulate the nation's international and domestic finance during periods of declared war or national emergency. The enacted bill limited the President's Trading with the Enemy Act power to regulate the country's finances to times of declared war. In IEEPA, a provision conferred authority on the Chief Executive to exercise controls over international economic transactions in the future during a declared national emergency and established procedures governing the use of this power, including close consultation with Congress when declaring a national emergency to activate IEEPA. Such a declaration would be subject to congressional regulation under the procedures of the National Emergencies Act.\nOther matters identified in the final report of the special committee for congressional scrutiny included\ninvestigation of emergency preparedness efforts conducted by the executive branch, attention to congressional preparations for an emergency and continual review of emergency law, ending open-ended grants of authority to the executive, investigation and institution of stricter controls over delegated powers, and improving the accountability of executive decisionmaking.\nThere is some public record indication that certain of these points, particularly the first and the last, have been addressed in the past two decades by congressional overseers.\nAs enacted, the National Emergencies Act consisted of five titles. The first of these generally returned all standby statutory delegations of emergency power, activated by an outstanding declaration of national emergency, to a dormant state two years after the statute's approval. However, the act did not cancel the 1933, 1950, 1970, and 1971 national emergency proclamations, because the President issued them pursuant to his Article II constitutional authority. Nevertheless, it did render them ineffective by returning to dormancy the statutory authorities they had activated, thereby necessitating a new declaration to activate standby statutory emergency authorities.\nTitle II provided a procedure for future declarations of national emergency by the President and prescribed arrangements for their congressional regulation. The statute established an exclusive means for declaring a national emergency. Emergency declarations were to terminate automatically after one year unless formally continued for another year by the President, but they could be terminated earlier by either the President or Congress. Originally, the prescribed method for congressional termination of a declared national emergency was a concurrent resolution adopted by both houses of Congress. This type of \"legislative veto\" was effectively invalidated by the Supreme Court in 1983. The National Emergencies Act was amended in 1985 to substitute a joint resolution as the vehicle for rescinding a national emergency declaration.\nWhen declaring a national emergency, the President must indicate, according to Title III, the powers and authorities being activated to respond to the exigency at hand. Certain presidential accountability and reporting requirements regarding national emergency declarations were specified in Title IV, and the repeal and continuation of various statutory provisions delegating emergency powers was accomplished in Title V.\n\n\tEmergency Declarations in Effect and Emergency Declarations No Longer in Effect\n\nSince the 1976 enactment of the National Emergencies Act, various national emergencies have been declared pursuant to its provisions. Some were subsequently revoked, while others remain in effect. Table 1 displays the number of national emergencies in effect (some may refer to these as \"active\") and the number of national emergencies no longer in effect (some may refer to these as \"inactive\"), by President. Detailed information regarding the 31 national emergencies in effect may be found in Table 2 . Similar information regarding the 22 national emergencies no longer in may be found in Table 3 .\nThe second column in Table 2 and Table 3 identifies the national emergency declaration, which is either an executive order (E.O.) or a presidential proclamation (Proc.). \n Table 3 includes declared national emergencies that are no longer in effect. \n\n\tConcluding Remarks\n\nThe development, exercise, and regulation of emergency powers, from the days of the Continental Congress to the present, reflect at least one highly discernable trend: Those authorities available to the executive in time of national crisis or exigency have, since the time of the Lincoln Administration, come to be increasingly rooted in statutory law. The discretion available to a Civil War President in his exercise of emergency power has been harnessed, to a considerable extent, in the contemporary period. \nDue to greater reliance upon statutory expression, the range of this authority has come to be more circumscribed, and the options for its use have come to be regulated procedurally through the National Emergencies Act. Since its enactment the National Emergencies Act has not been revisited by congressional overseers. The 1976 report of the Senate Special Committee on National Emergencies suggested that the prospect remains that further improvements and reforms in this policy area might be pursued and perfected.\nAn anomaly in the activation of emergency powers appears to have occurred on September 8, 2005, when President George W. Bush issued a proclamation suspending certain wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act in the course of the federal response to the Gulf Coast disaster resulting from Hurricane Katrina. Instead of following the historical pattern of declaring a national emergency to activate the suspension authority, the President set out the following rationale in the proclamation: \"I find that the conditions caused by Hurricane Katrina constitute a 'national emergency' within the meaning of section 3147 of title 40, United States Code.\" A more likely course of action would seemingly have been for the President to declare a national emergency pursuant to the National Emergencies Act and to specify that he was, accordingly, activating the suspension authority. Although the propriety of the President's action in this case might have been ultimately determined in the courts, the proclamation was revoked on November 3, 2005, by a proclamation in which the President cited the National Emergencies Act as authority, in part, for his action.", "source": "gov_report_summ", "evaluation": "rouge"}
{"instructions": ["Please help me summarize this government report."], "outputs": ["The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) requires U.S. transportation fuel to contain a minimum volume of renewable fuel. The RFS\u2014established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58; EPAct05) and expanded in 2007 by the Energy Independence and Security Act (P.L. 110-140; EISA)\u2014began with 4 billion gallons of renewable fuel in 2006 and aims to ascend to 36 billion gallons in 2022. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has statutory authority to determine the volume amounts after 2022.\nThe total renewable fuel statutory target consists of both conventional biofuel and advanced biofuel. Since 2014, the total renewable fuel statutory target has not been met, with the advanced biofuel portion falling below the statutory target by a large margin since 2015. Going forward, it is unlikely that the United States will meet the total renewable fuel target as outlined in statute.\nEPA administers the RFS and is responsible for several tasks. For instance, within statutory criteria EPA evaluates which renewable fuels are eligible for the RFS program. Also, EPA establishes the amount of renewable fuel that will be required for the coming year based on fuel supply and other conditions although waiver authority in the statute allows the EPA Administrator to reduce the statutory volumes if necessary. Further, the statute requires that the EPA Administrator \"reset\" the RFS\u2014whereby the fuel volumes required for future years are modified by the Administrator if certain conditions are met. EPA monitors compliance for the RFS using a system of tradable credits referred to as renewable identification numbers (RINs).\nCongress has expressed ongoing interest in the RFS, particularly as the mandate relates to other legislative efforts (e.g., Reid Vapor Pressure requirements for ethanol-gasoline fuel blends containing greater than 10% ethanol, a national octane standard) and about oversight of the RIN market, among other things. Some assert it is time to amend or repeal the RFS, while others contend the best course of action is to maintain the status quo. For instance, some Members contend the RFS hurts consumers by creating an artificial market for ethanol. Others see ethanol as a part of a competitive energy strategy.\nCongress may also express interest in how the EPA Administrator applies the RFS \"reset\" authority. EPA reports that in early 2019 it will issue a rulemaking that proposes to modify\u2014or \"reset\"\u2014the cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel volume targets for the years 2020-2022."], "input": "\tIntroduction\n\nEstablished by Congress as an amendment to the Clean Air Act, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) mandates that U.S. transportation fuels contain a minimum volume of biofuel. The mandated minimum volume increases annually and must be met using both conventional biofuel (e.g., corn starch ethanol) and advanced biofuel (e.g., cellulosic ethanol). For a renewable fuel to be applied toward the mandate, it must be used for certain purposes (i.e., transportation fuel, jet fuel, or heating oil) and meet certain environmental and biomass feedstock criteria. \nA variety of factors, such as infrastructure, technology, and limited federal assistance, have led to challenges in meeting the total volume requirement established by Congress. These challenges have included a lack of cellulosic biofuel production and delays by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in approving fuel pathways. Further, it is not clear how changes in gasoline consumption in response to fluctuating crude oil and gasoline prices impact the biofuel or conventional fuel industries. It is also uncertain how the program will fare once EPA implements the \"reset\" provision of the statute, which allows the agency to modify the volumes required for future years (starting in 2016) if certain conditions are met. In addition, some stakeholders have expressed concern about the transparency of the market wherein credits are traded to demonstrate compliance with the mandate. Lastly, there is concern by some biofuel producers that the Trump Administration's issuance of multiple small refinery exemptions has adversely affected, or will adversely affect, biofuel demand. Small refiners may petition the EPA Administrator for an exemption from the RFS mandate if they can prove disproportionate economic hardship.\nThere are, however, two fuel categories that have consistently met their statutory targets: conventional biofuel and biomass-based diesel. Also, since 2014, two advanced biofuel pathways\u2014renewable compressed natural gas and renewable liquefied natural gas\u2014have constituted the majority of the cellulosic biofuel volume target established by EPA.\nChallenges in implementing the RFS have led to scrutiny of the program in Congress and to litigation about EPA's regulations. Largely due to concerns about the implementation and feasibility of the RFS, some Members of Congress have expressed their perspectives on EPA's proposed and final rules as well as EPA's implementation of the program. They also have questioned whether to amend or repeal the RFS or whether to maintain the status quo. This report provides a basic description of the RFS, including some of the widely discussed policy issues related to it. \n\n\tThe Statute\n\nThe Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) was established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 ( P.L. 109-58 ; EPAct05) and expanded in 2007 by the Energy Independence and Security Act ( P.L. 110-140 ; EISA). The RFS mandate requires that transportation fuels sold or introduced into commerce in the United States contain an increasing volume of a predetermined suite of renewable fuels. The statute required 4.0 billion gallons of renewable fuel in 2006, ascending to 36.0 billion gallons required in 2022, with EPA determining the volume amounts after 2022 in future rulemakings. The statute centers on four renewable fuel categories\u2014conventional biofuel, advanced biofuel, cellulosic biofuel, and biomass-based diesel\u2014each with its own target volume. \nThe total renewable fuel requirement under the RFS is met with the combination of fuels from two renewable fuel categories: conventional biofuel and advanced biofuel. The requirement for advanced biofuel, in general, can be met with the combination of three types of advanced biofuel: cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, and other advanced biofuels. To date, the total annual volumes required have been met mostly with conventional biofuel (e.g., corn starch ethanol). Beginning in 2015, the mandate capped the conventional biofuel volume amounts while increasing the requirement for advanced biofuels. For instance, the statutory RFS total advanced biofuel requirement increases over time from approximately 7% of the RFS in 2010 to 58% of the RFS in 2022. \nA key part of the statutory definition of each fuel category is whether the fuel achieves certain greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions relative to gasoline and diesel fuel. Each fuel is assigned a lifecycle GHG emission threshold (in proportion to baseline lifecycle GHG emissions for gasoline and diesel). For example, a fuel must achieve at least a 50% GHG reduction to be considered an advanced biofuel , at least a 60% reduction to be considered a cellulosic biofuel , and at least a 50% reduction to be considered biomass-based diesel . Similarly, biofuel from new facilities\u2014those built after enactment of the 2007 law\u2014must achieve at least a 20% GHG reduction to qualify as a conventional renewable fuel.\n\n\tStatutory Compliance\n\nEPA regulates compliance with the RFS using a tradable credit system. Obligated parties (generally, refiners) submit credits\u2014called renewable identification numbers (RINs)\u2014to EPA that equal the number of gallons in their annual obligation. This annual obligation, referred to as the renewable volume obligation (RVO), is the obligated party's total gasoline and diesel sales multiplied by the annual renewable fuel percentage standards announced by EPA. RINs are valid for use in the year they are generated and the following year. Obligated parties may carry a deficit from one year to the next, but in the year following the deficit, the obligated party must meet compliance for that year's renewable fuel volume requirement and purchase or generate enough credits to satisfy the deficit from the previous year. RINs may be used by the party that generates them or they may be traded with other parties. The EPA Moderated Transaction System (EMTS) is used to register RIN transactions. \nDifferent biofuels are not treated equally within the RFS. The categories are nested within each other, such that some fuels qualify for multiple categories (e.g., cellulosic ethanol), while others (mainly corn starch ethanol) may only be used to meet the overall RFS but not the advanced category or its nested subcategories. For example, a gallon of cellulosic biofuel may be used to meet the cellulosic biofuel mandate, the advanced biofuel mandate, and the total renewable fuel mandate, possibly making it a more highly valued fuel.\nIn addition, some biofuels generate more RINs per volume than others because of the difference in the fuel's energy content. This difference is accounted for by a metric referred to as the equivalence value (EV) of the biofuel. The EV of a renewable fuel represents the number of gallons that can be claimed for compliance purposes for every physical gallon of renewable fuel used, and it is generally the ratio of the energy content of a gallon of the fuel to a gallon of ethanol. For example, because biodiesel has an EV of 1.5 when being used as an advanced biofuel, 1,000 physical gallons of biodiesel would equal 1,500 RIN gallons of advanced biofuels. \n\n\tThe 2019 Final Rule\n\nEPA released the final rule for the RFS for 2019 on November 30, 2018. The rule calls for 19.92 billion gallons of total renewable fuel for 2019\u2014a 1% increase from the 19.29 billion gallons required in 2018 (see Table 1 ). The conventional biofuel volume requirement remains at 15.00 billion gallons. The volume requirements set by EPA for 2019 for total renewable fuel, advanced biofuel, and cellulosic biofuel are all less than the volumes called for in statute but greater than the previous year's volumes\u2014an annual occurrence that started in 2014. EPA used the cellulosic waiver authority to reduce the statutory volumes. EPA reduced the statutory targets for both advanced biofuel and total renewable by the same amount as the reduction for the cellulosic biofuel (i.e., 8.08 billion gallons). EPA reports that the advanced biofuel statutory target of 13.0 billion gallons \"cannot be reached in 2019 \u2026 primarily due to the expected continued shortfall in cellulosic biofuel.\" EPA estimates there are 2.59 billion carryover RINs available. In its response to comments regarding the rule, EPA mentions a forthcoming reset rulemaking.\nEPA set the biomass-based diesel 2020 volume requirement at 2.43 billion gallons. Biomass-based diesel is the predominant biofuel used to satisfy the advanced biofuel portion of the mandate. Previously, it has been used to backfill the overall advanced biofuel requirement if another advanced biofuel fell short (e.g., cellulosic biofuel). EPA reports \"the advanced biofuel volume requirement is driving the production and use of biodiesel and renewable diesel volumes over and above volumes required through the separate BBD [biomass-based diesel] standard\" and that the 2020 volume requirement \"provides sufficient incentive to producers of 'other' advanced biofuels.\" EPA acknowledges that it took into consideration the unavailability of the biodiesel tax credit for 2019, the tariffs on imports of biodiesel from Argentina and Indonesia, the tariffs on soybeans exported to China, and more in its assessment of the biodiesel requirement for 2020.\n\n\tRFS Implementation Issues\n\nImplementation of the RFS has been complex, and compliance with some of its parts has been challenging, according to some stakeholders. This section briefly explains some of the general concerns and challenges with implementing the RFS.\n\n\t\tAdministering Agency\n\nEPA administers the RFS. This responsibility includes evaluating renewable fuel pathways eligible for the RFS. In addition, EPA is required to evaluate the ability of the biofuel industry to produce enough fuel to meet the annual volume standard, release an annual volume standard based on its research findings, and ensure that annual compliance by obligated parties is met. All of the above must be completed annually, taking into consideration comments from other government agencies, the public, and, recently, court decisions. These responsibilities could be viewed as an addition to EPA's regulatory workload and have required EPA to develop new capabilities to carry them out. \nFor several years following the 2010 issuance of the amended RFS final rule, EPA has had difficulty projecting certain volume requirements (e.g., cellulosic biofuels) which have led EPA to use its waiver authority to set annual volume requirements for cellulosic biofuel, total advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel different from what was stated in the statute. Legal challenges have been brought against the EPA regarding some of these annual fuel volume projections. For instance, the American Petroleum Institute objected to EPA's 2012 cellulosic biofuel production projection, among other things, and challenged it in court. The federal court vacated the 2012 cellulosic biofuel standard and provided principles for EPA to apply to future annual projections. Likewise, Americans for Clean Energy and other petitioners challenged various aspects of the final rule that set the volume requirements and projections for 2014-2016 and 2017 for biomass-based diesel, including EPA's interpretation of \"inadequate domestic supply\" in exercising its general waiver authority to reduce the total volume requirements. The D.C. Circuit Court vacated EPA's 2016 total renewable fuel volume requirement and remanded the 2015 final rule to EPA for reconsideration consistent with the court's decision.\nIn some instances the timing of EPA's RFS regulatory actions, such as the annual announcement of the renewable fuel volume requirements, has not met statutory deadlines. The most recent final rules, including the 2019 final rule, adhere to the statutory schedule. However, some of the earlier final rules did not meet the statutory deadline. A lack of timely rulemaking combined with inaccurate volume projections could affect private investment, according to some advanced biofuel producers. Regardless, they lead to uncertainty in compliance for obligated parties. The amount of time it takes the agency to approve new fuel pathways and register new facilities has been raised in public comments to proposed RFS rules. Slow approval could stifle investment and production of new fuels. Further, prolonged processing time for some program enhancement rules\u2014such as the Proposed Renewables Enhancement and Growth Support Rule (REGS rule)\u2014may impede the growth of the program.\nLastly, the final rule for 2014 through 2016 triggered the \"reset\" provision of the RFS for the advanced biofuel and cellulosic biofuel categories. The 2019 final rule triggered the \"reset\" provision for total renewable fuel. Thus, three of the four renewable fuel categories identified in statute are subject to being \"reset\" by the EPA Administrator. The reset provision gives the EPA Administrator authority to adjust the applicable volumes of the RFS for future years starting in 2016 if certain conditions are met. How EPA implements this provision will affect renewable fuel production and compliance with the overall program. EPA reports that it will issue a rulemaking in early 2019 that proposes to reset the cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel volume targets for the years 2020-2022.\n\n\t\tQualifying Biofuels\n\nAs noted above, there are a number of nested categories within the RFS; a fuel may qualify as a biofuel for one or more portions of the mandate. Difficulty by some advanced biofuel producers in understanding which advanced biofuels qualify for the RFS can lead to challenges in determining how compliance is being met. \nNot all fuels from a renewable source are eligible under the RFS. The RFS operates as a biofuel standard, with priority assigned to liquid transportation fuels from biomass feedstocks. Other renewable sources (e.g., wind) do not qualify. Before a fuel can generate RFS RINs, however, that fuel pathway must be approved by EPA; according to advanced biofuel producers that process can take a considerable amount of time for some fuels.\nLastly, some may view the RFS as a biofuel production mandate. The statutory language does not mandate the production of biofuels; rather, it mandates the use of biofuel. However, it could be argued that it is difficult to use a fuel that is not being produced and that the RFS therefore indirectly creates a demand for certain biofuels and thus stimulates their production. \n\n\t\tCellulosic Biofuel Production\n\nBy statute, cellulosic biofuel is targeted to comprise approximately 44% of the total renewable fuel mandate in 2022. However, the annual cellulosic biofuel production volume established by Congress is not being met. Actual cellulosic biofuel production volumes (e.g., cellulosic ethanol) are below the expectations set when the law was passed. For instance, in 2019, the statute requires 8.5 billion gallons of cellulosic biofuel. EPA set the 2019 target volume at 418 million gallons for 2019. This shortfall is due to several factors, including lack of private investment, technology setbacks, and uneven support from the federal government. These factors, coupled with the fact that annual volumes in the statute were established when market conditions for raising investment capital for new biofuel technologies were more favorable, may suggest unrealistic targets for some advanced biofuels for the near future. These production limitations have raised questions about whether the statutory cellulosic biofuel volumes are attainable.\n\n\t\tBlend Wall\n\nThe \"blend wall\"\u2014the upper limit to the total amount of ethanol that can be blended into U.S. gasoline and still maintain automobile performance and comply with the Clean Air Act\u2014has been viewed by many to be in direct conflict with the biofuel volumes mandated in the RFS. Thus far, the largest volume being met under the RFS is for the nonadvanced (conventional) biofuel segment of the mandate, met mainly with corn starch ethanol blended into gasoline. Due to a variety of factors, ethanol content in gasoline is generally limited to 10% (E10). With a relatively fixed supply of gasoline, the amount of ethanol that can be supplied this way is also limited. If the ethanol content of gasoline for the majority of vehicles remains at 10%, and given current fuel consumption rates, the conventional biofuel portion of the RFS is requiring slightly more ethanol than can technically be blended into gasoline. \nWhile the blend wall remains a concern, it may not be as significant an impediment to immediate fuel consumption as previously considered by some. Indeed, EPA reports \"the E10 blendwall is not the barrier that some stakeholders believe it to be.\" Had the RFS mandates\u2014for both conventional biofuel and advanced biofuel\u2014come to fruition in the form of mostly ethanol, or had fuel consumption decreased further, the blend wall potentially could have led to more discussion about the volume mandates. However, primarily due to the lack of cellulosic biofuel production, more time has been granted to address the blend wall and the scheduled levels of biofuels in the RFS. \nSome possible approaches could alleviate blend wall concerns in the near term. One option suggested by some is to blend higher levels of ethanol into conventional gasoline. In 2010 EPA granted a Clean Air Act waiver that allows gasoline to contain up to 15% ethanol for use in model year 2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles. However, limited demand, infrastructure and automobile warranty concerns, and the lack of a waiver to sell E15 during the summer months, have precluded widespread offering and purchase of E15, gasoline blended with 10.5% to 15% ethanol. Widespread use of E15 could potentially postpone the blend wall for a few years. \nAnother option to address the blend wall would be an aggressive push for the use of ethanol in flexible-fuel vehicles capable of using E85, a gasoline-ethanol blend containing 51% to 83% ethanol. However, there are infrastructure constraints with the use of E85. For example, the number of E85 fueling stations is limited. To help address these infrastructure issues, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced $100 million in matching grants in 2015 under its Biofuel Infrastructure Partnership. The grants may be used for blender pumps, dedicated E15 or E85 pumps, and new storage tanks and related equipment associated with new facilities or additional capacity.\n\n\t\tOther Factors\n\nThe RFS is not a stand-alone policy. It interacts with many factors that are not easily controlled. For example, cellulosic biofuel production, at a minimum, requires conversion technology, which itself requires technical expertise and time to ramp up to commercial scale. The large quantity of biomass feedstocks needed to produce such biofuels requires factors such as appropriate weather conditions and an expectation of stable markets for feedstock commodities. Further, some types of biofuel production thus far have been sensitive to the availability of tax incentives in order to be economically feasible (e.g., biodiesel). Unexpected occurrences (e.g., drought, failed technology, tax incentive expiration) could potentially impact an entire industry, especially for some advanced biofuels in nascent industries compared to conventional transportation fuels.\n\n\tCongressional Issues\n\nThe RFS was established in 2005 at a time when Congress foresaw the need to diversify the country's energy portfolio, strengthen the economy of rural communities that could contribute to biofuel production, bolster U.S. standing in an emerging segment of the energy technology market, and protect the environment, among other objectives. The RFS was then subsequently expanded in 2007. Over the past decade some components of the RFS have progressed steadily toward meeting statutory requirements and other components have not. \nThe RFS is a program with ambitious objectives. Policy questions surrounding future consideration of the RFS might include \nWhat should be the purposes of the RFS? Is the RFS properly designed to achieve those purposes? What happens when, and if, the RFS achieves its purposes?\nAt the outse t, some would argue that the first question may seem straightforward; the RFS exists to introduce more biofuels into the transportation fuel market to achieve a number of transportation fuel supply and environmental objectives. However, the statute does not list any specific purposes or objectives. Some stakeholders argue that the RFS exists primarily to find another market for biomass feedstocks or to promote the economy of rural America (e.g., the construction of biofuel facilities that create jobs). To the extent the RFS was designed to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and to the extent that hydraulic fracturing and the growth of unconventional oil and gas production have contributed to achieving that objective, some stakeholders have questioned whether the RFS is still needed for energy security purposes. Likewise, the environmental impact of the RFS could be challenged, as the advanced biofuel component of the RFS\u2014set to yield greater greenhouse gas emission reduction benefits\u2014has missed the statutory targets by a large margin.\nIn examining whether the RFS is well designed to realize its general purpose, some have inquired about the challenges in achieving the ambitious RFS targets, given concerns about the slow development of some advanced biofuel supplies. Additionally, past delays in announcing final annual standards by EPA have led to uncertainty for biofuel producers, feedstock growers, and refiners. Whether the RFS should be eliminated, amended to address the current challenges in the program, or maintained in its current form is an ongoing question for Congress. A related question is whether the current provisions for EPA to waive various portions of the RFS mandates and to reset the RFS are sufficient to address the current supply challenges or whether the use of these waivers runs counter to the goals of the program. Some Members of Congress have proposed alternatives to the RFS, such as transitioning to an octane standard.\nOther Members of Congress have expressed interest in modifying or eliminating the conventional biofuel (e.g., corn starch ethanol) portion of the mandate. Some contend that the conventional biofuel segment of the biofuels industry is well established, so it should not require a use mandate. In addition, it has been argued that a demand for conventional biofuels exists regardless of congressional involvement. Others counter that the RFS is needed to help lower GHG emissions and to assure that the biofuels industry continues to have access to a fuel distribution infrastructure that is largely controlled by petroleum interests.", "source": "gov_report_summ", "evaluation": "rouge"}
{"instructions": ["Please help me summarize this government report."], "outputs": ["Concurrent receipt refers to the simultaneous receipt of two types of federal monetary benefits: military retired pay and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability compensation. Prior to 2004, existing laws and regulations dictated that a military retiree could not receive two payments from federal agencies for the same purpose. As a result, military retirees with physical disabilities recognized by the VA would have their military retired pay offset or reduced dollar-for-dollar by the amount of their nontaxable VA compensation. Legislative activity on the issue of concurrent receipt began in the late 1980s and culminated in the provision for Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) in the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (P.L. 107-314). Since then, Congress has added Concurrent Retirement and Disability Payments (CRDP) for those retirees with a disability rated at 50% or greater, extended concurrent receipt to additional eligible populations, and further refined and clarified the program.\nThere are two common criteria that define eligibility for concurrent receipt: (1) all recipients must be military retirees and (2) they must also be eligible for VA disability compensation. An eligible retiree cannot receive both CRDP and CRSC. The retiree must choose whichever is most financially advantageous to him or her and may change the type of benefit to be received during an annual open season.\nIn FY2017, approximately one-third of the retired military population was receiving either CRSC or CRDP at a cost of $12.4 billion. Nevertheless, there are also military retirees who receive VA disability compensation but are not eligible for concurrent receipt. Determining whether to make some or all of this population eligible for concurrent receipt remains a point of contention in Congress. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that to extend benefits to all veterans who would be eligible for both disability benefits and military retired pay would cost $30 billion from 2015 to 2024. In 2016, CBO estimated that eliminating concurrent receipt would save the government $139 billion between 2018 and 2026."], "input": "\tIntroduction\n\nConcurrent receipt refers to the simultaneous receipt of two types of monetary benefits: military retired pay and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability compensation. With several separate programs, varying eligibility criteria, and several eligibility dates, some observers find the subject complex and somewhat confusing. There are, however, two common criteria: first, all recipients are military retirees; second, they are also eligible for VA disability compensation. This report addresses the two primary components of the concurrent receipt program: Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) and Concurrent Retirement and Disability Payments (CRDP). It reviews the possible legislative expansion of the program to additional populations and provides several potential options for Congress to consider.\n\n\t\tBackground\n\nIn 1891, Congress first prohibited payment of both military retired pay and a disability pension under the premise that it represented dual or overlapping compensation for the same purpose. The original law was modified in 1941, and the present system of VA disability compensation offsetting military retired pay was adopted in 1944. Under this system, retired military personnel were required to waive a portion of their retired pay equal to the amount of VA disability compensation, a dollar-for-dollar offset. If, for example, a military retiree received $1,500 a month in retired pay and was rated by the VA as 70% disabled (and therefore entitled to approximately $1,000 per month in disability compensation), the offset would operate to pay $500 monthly in retired pay and the $1,000 in disability compensation. The advantage for the retiree was that VA disability compensation was not taxable. For many years some military retirees and advocacy groups sought a change in law to permit receipt of all, or some, of both payments. Opponents of concurrent receipt frequently referred to it as double dipping , maintaining that it represented two payments for the same condition.\nIn the FY2003 NDAA ( P.L. 107-314 ), Congress created a benefit known as Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC). CRSC provided, for certain disabled retirees whose disability is combat-related, a cash benefit financially identical to what concurrent receipt would provide them. The FY2004 NDAA ( P.L. 108-136 ) authorized, for the first time, the phase-in of actual concurrent receipt (now referred to as Concurrent Retirement and Disability Payments or CRDP), and a greatly expanded CRSC program. The FY2005 NDAA ( P.L. 108-375 ) further liberalized the concurrent receipt rules contained in the FY2004 NDAA and authorized immediate concurrent receipt for those rated by the VA totaling 100%. The FY2008 NDAA ( P.L. 110-181 ) expanded concurrent receipt eligibility to include those who are 100% disabled due to unemployability and provided CRSC to those who were medically retired or retired prematurely due to force reduction programs prior to completing 20 years of service. CRDP phase-in was fully implemented by 2014, allowing retirees with a disability rated at 50% or greater to receive full retired pay and full VA disability compensation without an offset.\n\n\tMilitary Retirement and VA Disability Compensation\n\nAn understanding of military retirement, VA disability compensation, and the interaction of these two elements is helpful in discussing concurrent receipt. \n\n\t\tMilitary Retirement\n\nAn active duty servicemember becomes entitled to retired pay, frequently referred to as vesting , upon completion of 20 years of service, regardless of age. A member who retires is immediately paid a monthly annuity based on a percentage of their final base pay or the average of their high three years of base pay, depending on when they entered active duty. Retired pay accrues at the rate of 2.5% per year of service for those who have entered the service prior to January 1, 2018, and 2.0% for those entering service on or after January 1, 2018. An alternative retirement option, known as \"Redux,\" was also available for certain active duty servicemembers, depending on their date of entry. \n\n\t\t\tReserve Retirement\n\nReserve component servicemembers also become eligible for retirement upon completion of 20 years of qualifying service, regardless of age. However, their retired pay calculation is based on a point system that results in a number of \"equivalent years\" of service. In addition, a reserve component retiree does not usually begin receiving retired pay until reaching age 60.\n\n\t\t\tDisability Retirement\n\nWhile retirement eligibility at 20 years of service is the norm for active component members and age 60 for reserve component members, there are some circumstances that result in earlier retirement. Servicemembers found to be unfit for continued service due to physical disability may be retired if the condition is permanent and stable and the disability is rated by DOD as 30% or greater. These retirees are generally referred to as Chapter 61 retirees , a reference to Chapter 61 of Title 10, which covers disability retirement. As a result, some disability retirees are retired before becoming eligible for longevity retirement while others have completed 20 or more years of service.\nA servicemember retired for disability may select one of two available options for calculating their monthly retired pay:\n1. Longevity Formula. Retired pay is computed by multiplying the years of service times 2.5% or 2.0% (respectively based on a date of entry into service before or after Jan 1, 2018) and then times the pay base. Monthly Retired Pay= (years of service x 2.5% or 2.0%) x (pay base) 2. Disability Formula. Retired pay is computed by multiplying the DOD disability percentage by the pay base. Monthly Retired Pay= disability % x (pay base)\nThe maximum retired pay calculation under either formula cannot exceed 75% of base pay. The retired pay computed under the disability formula is fully taxed unless the disability is the result of a combat-related injury. Since the disability percentage method usually results in higher retired pay, it is most commonly selected. Generally, military retired pay based on longevity is taxable. In certain instances, a portion of disability retired pay may be tax-free.\n\n\t\t\tTemporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA)\n\nPersonnel retired due to force management requirements and before completing 20 years of service are generally referred to as \"TERA retirees\" because the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 granted Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) as a manpower tool to entice voluntary retirements during the drawdown of the early 1990s. This authority was in effect from 1992 to 2001. TERA retired pay is calculated in the same way as longevity retirement, but there is a retired pay reduction of 1% for every year of service below 20.\n\n\t\tVA Disability Compensation\n\nTo qualify for VA disability compensation, the VA must make a determination that the veteran sustained a particular injury or disease, or had a preexisting condition aggravated, while serving in the Armed Forces. Some exceptions exist for certain conditions that may not have been apparent during military service but which are presumed to have been service-connected. The VA has a scale of 10 ratings, from 10% to 100%, although there is no direct arithmetic relationship between the amounts of money paid for each step. Each percentage rating entitles the veteran to a specific level of disability compensation. In a major difference from the DOD disability retirement system, a veteran receiving VA disability compensation can ask for a medical reexamination at any time (or a veteran who does not receive disability compensation upon separation or retirement from service can be examined or reexamined later).\nAll VA disability compensation is tax-free, which makes receipt of VA compensation desirable, even with the operation of the offset. As a general rule of thumb, DOD pays for longevity while the VA pays for disability.\n\n\t\tInteraction of DOD and VA Disability Benefits12\n\nAs veterans, military retirees can apply to the VA for disability compensation. A retiree may (1) apply for VA compensation any time after leaving the service and (2) have his or her degree of disability changed by the VA as the result of a later medical reevaluation, as noted above. Many retirees seek benefits from the VA years after retirement for a condition that may have been incurred during military service but that does not manifest itself until many years later. Typical examples include hearing loss, some cardiovascular problems, and conditions related to exposure to Agent Orange.\nThe DOD and VA disability rating systems have much in common, but there are also significant differences. DOD makes a determination of eligibility for disability retirement only once, at the time the individual is separating from the service. Although DOD uses the VA rating schedule to determine the percentage of disability, DOD measures disability, or lack thereof, against the extent to which the individual can or cannot perform military duties. Military disability retired pay, but not VA disability compensation, is usually taxable, unless related to a combat disability.\nAs a result of the current disability process, a retiree can have both a DOD and a VA disability rating and these ratings will not necessarily be the same percentage. The percentage determined by DOD is used to determine fitness for duty and may result in the medical separation or disability retirement of the servicemember. The VA rating, on the other hand, was designed to reflect the average loss of earning power. Studies over the past several years have consistently recommended a single, comprehensive medical examination that would establish a disability rating that could be used by both DOD and the VA. \nThe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 required a joint DOD and VA report on the feasibility of consolidating disability evaluation systems to eliminate duplication by having one medical examination and a single-source disability rating. As a result, DOD and the VA initiated a one-year pilot program, now called the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES), at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the National Naval Medical Center at Bethesda, and the Malcolm Grove Medical Center at Andrews Air Force Base. The program was expanded to other sites in 2009 and 2010, and since September 2011 all new disability retirement cases at facilities worldwide have been processed through IDES.\nAs IDES streamlined the disability evaluation process, DOD and VA now focus on improving health care data and records sharing, a process deemed \"vital to Service members who are leaving the DOD system with complex medical issues and ongoing health care needs.\" In September 2018, DOD and VA issued a joint statement indicating their commitment to implement an integrated electronic health system that will allow for seamless sharing of health care data between both departments and aid the disability rating process. \n\n\tCombat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC)\n\nThe FY2003 NDAA, as amended by the FY2004 NDAA, authorized Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC). Military retirees with at least 20 years of service and who meet either of the following two criteria are eligible for CRSC:\nA disability that is \"attributable to an injury for which the member was awarded the Purple Heart,\" and is not rated as less than a 10% disability by the VA; or A disability rating resulting from involvement in \"armed conflict,\" \"hazardous service,\" \"duty simulating war,\" or \"through an instrumentality of war.\" \nThis liberal definition of combat-related encompasses disabilities associated with any kind of hostile force; hazardous duty such as diving, parachuting, or using dangerous materials such as explosives; individual training and unit training and exercises and maneuvers in the field; and \"instrumentalities of war.\" \nRetirees must apply for CRSC to their parent service, and the parent service is responsible for verifying that the disability is combat-related. This process is not automatic; it is application-driven. CRSC payments will generally be equal to the amount of VA disability compensation that has been determined to be combat-related. The legislation does not end the requirement that the retiree's military retired pay be reduced by the amount of the total VA disability compensation the retiree receives. Instead, CRSC beneficiaries are to receive the financial equivalent of concurrent receipt as \"special compensation,\" but the statute states explicitly that it is not retired pay per se. CRSC payments are paid from the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund. As of September 2017, a total of 90,740 retirees were receiving CRSC (see Figure 1 ).\n\n\t\tCRSC for Military Disability (Chapter 61) and TERA Retirees\n\nServicemembers with a permanent DOD disability rating of 30% or greater may be retired and receive retired pay prior to completing 20 years of service. These retirees are generally referred to as \"Chapter 61\" retirees, a reference to Chapter 61, Title 10, which governs disability retirement. In addition to the Chapter 61 retirees with less than 20 years of service, those who voluntarily retired under the Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) during the military drawdown of the early to mid-1990s also have less than 20 years of service. The original CRSC legislation excluded those active duty members who retired with less than 20 years of service.\nHowever, the FY2008 NDAA expanded CRSC to include Chapter 61 and active duty TERA retirees effective January 1, 2008. Eligibility no longer requires a minimum number of years of service or a minimum disability rating (other than the 30% noted above for disability retirement); a 10% VA rating may qualify if it is combat-related. Eligible retirees must still apply to their parent service to validate that the disability is combat-related. \nThe FY2008 NDAA included almost all reserve disability retirees in the eligible CRSC population except those retired under 10 U.S.C. 12731b, a special provision which allows reservists with a physical disability not incurred in the line of duty to retire with between 15 and 19 creditable years of service.\n\n\t\t\tThe \"Special Rule\" for Disability Retirees\n\nAs noted earlier, an individual generally cannot receive two separate lifelong government annuities from federal agencies for the same purpose or qualifying event, for example, disability retired pay and VA disability compensation. To preclude this, there is a \"special rule\" for Chapter 61 disability retirees. Application of the special rule caps the CRSC at the level to which the retiree could have qualified based solely on years of service or longevity. In some instances, the special rule could limit or completely eliminate the concurrent receipt payment. In other instances, application of the rule may not result in any changes. Each situation is unique (rank, years of service, DOD and VA disability ratings, and the disability percentage attributable to combat) and requires independent calculations.\nIt appears that those most vulnerable to the reduction of CRSC due to the special rule would be active duty servicemembers with a disability retirement, significantly less than 20 years of service, and a high VA disability rating. Others potentially impacted would be reserve members with little active duty.\n\n\t\tCRSC for Reserve Retirees\n\nWhen CRSC was originally enacted in 2002, it required all applicants to have at least 20 years of service creditable for computation of retired pay. As a result, reserve retirees had to have at least 7,200 reserve retirement points to be eligible for CRSC. As noted earlier, a reservist receives a certain number of retirement points for varying levels of participation in the reserves, or active duty military service. The 7,200-point figure was extraordinarily high; it could only have been attained by a reservist who had many years of active duty military service in addition to a long reserve career. Initially this law, as enacted, effectively denied CRSC to almost all reservists.\nHowever, a provision in the FY2004 NDAA clarified the service requirement for reserve component personnel. It specified that personnel who qualify for reserve retirement by having at least 20 years of duty creditable for reserve retirement are eligible for CRSC. While eligible for CRSC, reserve retirees must be drawing retired pay (generally at age 60) to actually receive the CRSC payment.\n\n\t\tCRSC Eligibility Summary\n\nEssentially, with the exception of reserve component members injured while not in a duty status, all military retirees who have been awarded a Purple Heart or have combat-related disabilities compensable by the VA are eligible for CRSC (see Figure 2 ). Military retirees with service-connected disabilities which are not combat-related as defined by the statute are not eligible for CRSC, but may be eligible for CRDP as discussed below.\n\n\tConcurrent Retirement and Disability Payments (CRDP)\n\nThe FY2004 NDAA authorized, for the first time, actual concurrent receipt for retirees with at least a 50% disability, regardless of the cause of disability. However, the amount of concurrent receipt was to be phased in over a 10-year period, from 2004 to 2013, except for 100% disabled retirees, who became entitled to immediate concurrent receipt effective January 1, 2005. Depending on the degree of disability, the initial amount of retired pay that the retiree could have restored would vary from $100 to $750 per month, or the actual amount of the offset, whichever was less. In 2014, all offsets ended and military retirees with at least a 50% disability became eligible to receive their entire military retired pay and VA disability compensation. In FY2017 there were 577,399 retirees receiving CRDP.\nA retiree cannot receive both CRSC and CRDP benefits. The retiree may choose whichever is more financially advantageous to him or her and may change the type of benefit to be received during an annual o pen s eason to maximize the payments received. There are currently two groups of retirees who are not eligible for CRDP benefits (see Figure 4 ). The first group is nondisability military retirees with service-connected disabilities that have been rated by the VA at 40% or less. The second group includes Chapter 61 disability retirees with service-connected disabilities of 100% or less and with less than 20 years of service.\n\n\t\tCRDP for Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) Retirees\n\nThe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 granted temporary authority (which expired on September 30, 2001) for the services to offer early retirements to personnel with more than 15 but less than 20 years of service. TERA was used as a manpower tool to entice voluntary retirements during the post-Cold War drawdown. TERA retired pay was calculated in the usual way except that there is an additional reduction of 1% for every year of service below 20. Part or all of this latter reduction could be restored if the retiree worked in specified public service jobs (such as law enforcement, firefighting, and education) during the period immediately following retirement, until the point at which the retiree would have reached the 20-year mark if he or she had remained in the service.\nTERA retirees are eligible for CRSC and CRDP even though they have less than 20 years of service. The \"special rule\" for disability retirees (discussed below) does not apply to TERA retirees since TERA was not a disability retirement, but rather a regular retirement but for those with less than 20 years of service.\n\n\tConcurrent Receipt and Blended Retirement System Lump Sum Payments\n\nThe Blended Retirement System (BRS), effective for all servicemembers joining on or after January 1, 2018, offers servicemembers the option to select a lump sum payment of a portion of their military retired pay in lieu of a monthly annuity. If a member retiring under the BRS is eligible for CRDP and elects the lump sum payment of retired pay, the individual will continue to receive a monthly VA disability payment. If the member electing the lump sum payment is not eligible for CRDP (i.e., the retired pay offset applies), the VA will withhold disability payments until the sum of the amount withheld over time equals the gross amount of the lump sum payment. If the member is eligible for CRSC, the procedures for withholding VA disability payments relate to the combat-related portion of the total VA entitlement.\n\n\tCRSC and CRDP Comparisons and Costs\n\nCRSC and CRDP share some common elements, but are unique benefits. Table 1 summarizes some of the similarities and differences between CRSC and CRDP.\nCRDP and CRSC are paid from the DOD Military Retirement Fund. Costs have been rising every year as a consequence of the phased implementation and a rise in the number of eligible recipients. As of September 2017, one-third of all military retirees collecting retired pay were receiving either CRDP or CRSC. \n\n\tIssues and Options for Congress\n\nVeteran advocacy groups continue to lobby for changes to the concurrent receipt programs that would expand benefits to a larger population of retirees. Other groups have pressed Congress to offset or streamline duplicative benefits, contending that the dual receipt of VA and DOD payments amounts to double-dipping , or in some cases triple-dipping for those veterans also eligible for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) from the Social Security Administration. \nSome of the factors that Congress might consider regarding potential changes include program costs, program efficiencies, individual eligibility requirements, and interaction with other servicemembers' and veterans' benefits and programs. Below are some options to change concurrent receipt programs that have been proposed or considered.\n\n\t\tEliminate or Sunset Concurrent Receipt Programs\n\nThe Congressional Budget Office has estimated that eliminating the CRDP program would save the government $139 billion between 2018 and 2026. While achieving significant cost savings, eliminating or sunsetting concurrent receipt programs could be unpopular among servicemembers, veterans, and their families. Previous efforts to reduce benefits to servicemembers have typically included a grandfather clause that would allow all current servicemembers and retirees to maintain existing benefits while the law would only apply to those who joined the service after a specific date.\n\n\t\tExtend CRDP to Chapter 61 Disability Retirees with Less Than 20 Years of Service\n\nAs previously discussed, the FY2008 NDAA extended CRSC eligibility to Chapter 61 retirees who retired due to combat-related physical disability prior to completing 20 years of service. However, Chapter 61 retirees with service-connected disabilities rated less than 50% or with less than 20 years of service are not eligible for CRDP. Congress could expand the CRDP provision to include this cohort. This option would extend CRDP eligibility to approximately 100,000 additional disability retirees at an estimated 10-year cost of $5.8 billion.\n\n\t\tExtend CRDP to Those with a 40% or Less VA Disability Rating\n\nAt present, those military retirees with service-connected disabilities rated at 50% or greater are eligible for CRDP. Congress could revise the concurrent receipt legislation to include the entire population of military retirees with service-connected disabilities. In 2014, CBO estimated that to extend benefits to all veterans who would be eligible for both disability benefits and military retired pay would cost $30 billion from 2015 to 2024.\n\n\t\tModify or Eliminate the Special Rule\n\nWith the extension of CRSC to Chapter 61 disability retirees, the special rule factors significantly into the concurrent receipt calculations. For those whose CRSC payment is limited or eliminated by the special rule , there may be a perceived inequity between CRSC recipients with 20 or more years of service (longevity retirees) and Chapter 61 (disability retirees who generally have less than 20 years of service) retirees.\nTo resolve this potential issue, Congress could modify or eliminate the special rule or limit its application to specific military operations. However, some observers may note that eliminating or modifying the special rule would result in paying for the same disability twice, by DOD and by VA. It might also complicate future initiatives to simplify and streamline postservice compensation whereby DOD would only compensate for years of service and the VA would only compensate for disability, as recommended by the Dole/Shalala commission.", "source": "gov_report_summ", "evaluation": "rouge"}
{"instructions": ["Please help me summarize this government report."], "outputs": ["In recent decades, the process for appointing judges to the U.S. circuit courts of appeals and the U.S. district courts has been of continuing Senate interest. The President and the Senate share responsibility for making these appointments. Pursuant to the Constitution's Appointments Clause, the President nominates persons to fill federal judgeships, with the appointment of each nominee also requiring Senate confirmation. Although not mentioned in the Constitution, an important role is also played midway in the appointment process by the Senate Judiciary Committee.\nThe statistics presented in this report reflect congressional interest in issues related to the confirmation process for lower federal court nominees. Statistics are provided for each stage of the nomination and confirmation process\u2014from the frequency of judicial vacancies that require a presidential nomination for a judgeship to be filled to the frequency of roll call votes (rather than the use of unanimous consent or voice votes) to confirm judicial nominees. Statistics are also provided related to the length of the confirmation process itself. Additional statistics provided relate to the demographic characteristics of circuit and district court nominees confirmed by the Senate.\nThe period covered by the report, 1977 through 2018, includes every Administration from the Carter presidency to the first two years of the Trump presidency. This period also includes every Congress from the 95th (1977-1978) through the 115th (2017-2018).\nBecause the statistics presented for the Trump presidency are for the first two years of his Administration (while statistics for other presidencies reflect each President's entire Administration, whether four or eight years), the statistics presented for the Trump presidency may be different at the conclusion of his Administration.\nThis report will be next updated by CRS at the conclusion of the 116th Congress."], "input": "\tIntroduction\n\nUnder the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, the President and the Senate share responsibility for making appointments to the Supreme Court, as well as to various lower courts of the federal judiciary. While the President nominates persons to fill federal judgeships, the appointment of each nominee also requires Senate confirmation. \nHistorically, the vast majority of appointments to federal judgeships (other than to the Supreme Court) have typically not involved much public disagreement between the President and the Senate or between the parties within the Senate. Debate in the Senate over particular lower court nominees, or over the lower court appointment process itself, was uncommon. Typically, such nominations were both reported out of the Judiciary Committee and confirmed by the Senate without any recorded opposition. \nIn recent decades, however, appointments to two kinds of lower federal courts\u2014the U.S. circuit courts of appeals and the U.S. district courts\u2014have often been the focus of heightened Senate interest and debate, as has the process itself for appointing judges to these courts. \nGiven congressional interest in the subject, this report provides statistics and analysis related to the nomination and confirmation of U.S. circuit and district court judges from 1977 (the beginning of the Carter presidency) through 2018 (the second year of the Trump presidency). \nThe report's exclusive focus are the U.S. circuit courts of appeals and U.S. district courts. Excluded from the scope of the report are the U.S. Supreme Court; the U.S. Court of International Trade; the U.S. Court of Federal Claims; and territorial district courts (e.g., the District Court of Guam).\n\n\tOverview of the U.S. Courts of Appeals and U.S. District Courts\n\n\t\tU.S. Circuit Courts\n\nThe U.S. courts of appeals, or circuit courts, take appeals from federal district court decisions and are also empowered to review the decisions of many administrative agencies. Cases presented to the courts of appeals are generally considered by judges sitting in three-member panels. Courts within the courts of appeals system are often called \"circuit courts\" (e.g., the First Circuit Court of Appeals is also referred to as the \"First Circuit\"), because the nation is divided into 12 geographic circuits, each with a U.S. court of appeals. One additional nationwide circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, has specialized subject matter jurisdiction. \nAltogether, 179 judgeships for these 13 courts of appeals are currently authorized by law (167 for the 12 regional U.S. courts of appeals and 12 for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). The First Circuit (comprising Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico) has the fewest number of authorized appellate court judgeships, 6, while the Ninth Circuit (comprising Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington) has the most, 29.\n\n\t\tU.S. District Courts\n\nU.S. district courts are the federal trial courts of general jurisdiction. There are 91 Article III district courts: 89 in the 50 states, plus 1 in the District of Columbia and 1 more in Puerto Rico. Each state has at least one U.S. district court, while some states (specifically California, New York, and Texas) have as many as four. \nAltogether, 673 Article III U.S. district court judgeships are currently authorized by law. Congress has authorized between 1 and 28 judgeships for each district court. The Eastern District of Oklahoma (Muskogee) has 1 authorized judgeship, the smallest number among Article III district courts, while the Southern District of New York (Manhattan) and the Central District of California (Los Angeles) each have 28 judgeships, the most among Article III district courts.\n\n\tU.S. Circuit and District Court Vacancies\n\nOpportunities for a President to make circuit and district court appointments arise when judgeships are vacant or are scheduled to become vacant. Various factors influence the number of such opportunities a President will have during his tenure in office, including the frequency with which judicial departures occur; whether any new judgeships are statutorily created by Congress (which consequently provide a President with the opportunity to nominate individuals to the new judgeships); the number of judicial nominations submitted by a President; and the speed by which the Senate considers such nominations.\n Table 1 reports the percentage of U.S. circuit and district court judgeships that were vacant on January 1 immediately prior to the beginning of each new Congress and four-year presidential term from 1977 through 2017.\nOverall, during this period, the median percentage of circuit court judgeships that were vacant immediately prior to the start of a new Congress was 8.9%. The median percentage of district court judgeships that were vacant immediately prior to the start of a new Congress was 7.2%.\nAs shown by the table, the percentage of U.S. circuit judgeships that were vacant was highest at the beginning of the 96 th Congress, 28.8%, and lowest at the beginning of the 98 th Congress, 3.5%. The percentage of U.S. district court judgeships that were vacant was also highest at the beginning of the 96 th Congress, 24.7%, and lowest at the beginning of the 109 th Congress, 3.1%.\nThe percentage of judgeships that are vacant at the beginning of a presidency is influenced, in part, by the extent to which the preceding President's nominees were approved by the Senate during the final year or two of his term. For example, most recently, at the beginning of the Trump presidency, the percentage of U.S. district court judgeships that were vacant was 12.8%. This was due, in part, to the comparatively small number of district court nominations confirmed by the Senate during the final two years of the Obama presidency.\n\n\tNumber and Percentage of Nominees Confirmed\n\nVarious factors influence the number and percentage of judicial nominees confirmed during any given presidency or Congress. These factors include, but are not limited to, the frequency with which judges depart the bench; the speed with which a presidential Administration vets and selects nominees for vacant judgeships; whether a President is of the same political party as the majority party in the Senate; whether a congressional session coincides with a presidential election year; and the point in a congressional session when nominations arrive in the Senate.\n\n\t\tBy Presidency\n\nAs shown by Table 2 , the number of U.S. circuit court nominees confirmed during a completed presidency ranged from a high of 83 during the Reagan presidency to a low of 42 during the single four-year term of George H. W. Bush. Of two-term Presidents, the high ranged from a high of 83 (Reagan) to a low of 55 during the Obama presidency.\nIn terms of the percentage of circuit court nominees confirmed during a completed presidency, which takes into account the number of circuit court nominations submitted to the Senate, the greatest percentage of nominees were confirmed during the Carter presidency (93.3%), and the smallest percentage were confirmed during the George W. Bush presidency (71.8%). Of two-term Presidents, the high ranged from 88.3% during the Reagan presidency to a low of 71.8% (George W. Bush).\nThe number of U.S. district court nominees confirmed during a completed presidency ranged from a high of 305 during the Clinton presidency to a low of 148 during the single four-year term of George H. W. Bush. Of two-term Presidents, the high ranged from a high of 305 (Clinton) to a low of 261 during the George W. Bush presidency.\nIn terms of the percentage of district court nominees confirmed during a completed presidency, which takes into account the number of district court nominations submitted to the Senate, the greatest percentage of nominees were confirmed during the Reagan presidency (94.8%), and the smallest percentage were confirmed during the George H. W. Bush presidency (77.1%). Of two-term Presidents, the high ranged from 94.8% (Reagan) to a low of 83.2% during the Obama presidency.\n\n\t\tBy Congress\n\nThe median number of U.S. circuit court nominees confirmed during a Congress, from the 95 th through the 115 th , was 17 (while the median number of circuit court nominations submitted to the Senate was 26). And as shown by Table 3 , the number of U.S. circuit court nominees confirmed during this same period ranged from a low of 2 (during the 114 th Congress, 2015-2016) to a high of 44 (during the 96 th Congress, 1979-1980).\nThe median percentage of circuit court nominees confirmed during a Congress, from the 95 th through the 115 th , was 65.4%. The smallest percentage of circuit court nominees, 22.2%, were confirmed during the 114 th Congress (2015-2016). All (100%) of the circuit court nominations submitted to the Senate during the 95 th and 99 th Congresses (1977-1978 and 1985-1986, respectively) were confirmed by the Senate. \nThe median number of U.S. district court nominees confirmed during a Congress, from the 95 th through the 115 th , was 66 (while the median number of district court nominations submitted to the Senate was 85). The number of nominees confirmed ranged from a low of 18 (during the 114 th Congress, 2015-2016) to a high of 154 (during the 96 th Congress, 1979-1980).\nThe median percentage of district court nominees confirmed during a Congress, from the 95 th through the 115 th , was 84.0%. The smallest percentage confirmed during this period was 29.5% (during the 114 th Congress, 2015-2016) and the greatest percentage confirmed was 98.6% (during the 97 th Congress, 1981-1982).\n\n\t\t\tInfluence of Unified and Divided Party Control\n\nIn general, both a greater number and percentage of circuit and district court nominees were confirmed during Congresses in which the party of the President was the same as the majority party in the Senate. During Congresses in which there was unified party control (i.e., the party of the President and the majority party in the Senate were the same), the median number of circuit court nominees confirmed was approximately 18, and the median percentage of nominees confirmed was 80.0%. In contrast, during Congresses in which there was divided party control (i.e., the party of the President was different than the majority party in the Senate), the median number of circuit court nominees confirmed was 16, and the median percentage of nominees confirmed was 59.7%.\nDuring Congresses in which there was unified party control, the median number of district court nominees confirmed was approximately 76, and the median percentage of nominees confirmed was 89.5%. In contrast, during Congresses in which there was divided party control, the median number of district court nominees confirmed was 60, and the median percentage of nominees confirmed was 73.1%.\n\n\tMultiple Nominations of the Same Person Prior to Final Action by the Senate\n\nOver the last several presidencies, it has become increasingly common for a President to nominate an individual two or more times to a U.S. circuit or district court judgeship prior to final action on the nomination by the Senate (irrespective of whether the Senate ultimately approved the nomination). Consequently, the percentage of nominees confirmed during a presidency who were nominated two or more times prior to being approved by the Senate has also increased in recent years.\n\n\t\tU.S. Circuit Court Nominees\n\nAs shown by Table 4 , the total number of circuit court nominees who were nominated two or more times prior to final action, whether confirmed or not, ranged from a low of 1 (during the Carter and George H. W. Bush presidencies) to a high of 39 (during the George W. Bush presidency). \nThe number of circuit court nominees who were nominated more than once and ultimately confirmed by the Senate ranged from a low of 0 (during the George H. W. Bush presidency) to a high of 28 (during the George W. Bush presidency). And the number of nominees who were nominated more than once but not confirmed by the Senate ranged from a low of 0 (during the Carter presidency) to a high of 11 (during the George W. Bush presidency).\nOverall, of the six presidencies listed in Table 4 , President George W. Bush had the greatest percentage of confirmed circuit court nominees who were nominated more than once prior to being confirmed by the Senate (45.9%). \nMost recently, during the Obama presidency, the percentage of confirmed circuit court nominees who were nominated more than once prior to being approved by the Senate declined to 36.4% (representing the second-highest percentage of circuit court nominees nominated more than once prior to Senate approval).\n\n\t\tU.S. District Court Nominees\n\nAs shown by Table 5 , the total number of district court nominees who were nominated two or more times prior to final action ranged from a low of 3 (during the George H. W. Bush presidency) to a high of 111 (during the Obama presidency).\nThe number of district court nominees who were nominated more than once and ultimately confirmed by the Senate ranged from a low of 2 (during the George H. W. Bush presidency) to a high of 104 (during the Obama presidency). And the number of nominees who were nominated more than once but not confirmed by the Senate ranged from a low of 1 (during the Carter and George H. W. Bush presidencies) to a high of 9 (during the Clinton presidency).\nOverall, of the six presidencies listed in Table 5 , President Obama had the greatest percentage of confirmed district court nominees who were nominated more than once prior to being confirmed by the Senate (38.8%). This was an increase from the George W. Bush presidency, when 23.8% of district court nominees were nominated more than once prior to being confirmed (which represents the second-highest percentage of district court nominees nominated more than once prior to Senate approval).\n\n\tNominees Whose Nominations Were Returned at the End of a Congress\n\n Table 6 provides data related to the number of U.S. circuit and district court nominees whose nominations were returned by the Senate to the President at the end of each Congress, from the 95 th through the 115 th . The table also indicates how many of these nominees had been given a hearing (or not) by the Judiciary Committee as well as how many had their nominations reported by the committee and pending on the Executive Calendar prior to being returned to the President.\nFor a Congress that did not coincide with the last two years of a presidency, it was not uncommon for a nominee whose nomination was returned at the end of it to be resubmitted during a subsequent Congress and eventually be approved by the Senate. For a Congress, however, that did coincide with the last two years of a presidency, a nominee whose nomination was returned at the end of it was not confirmed by the Senate.\n\n\t\tU.S. Circuit Court Nominees\n\nThe median number of U.S. circuit court nominees whose nominations were returned to a President at the end of a Congress during this period was 8, while the median number of district court nominees whose nominations were returned at the end of a Congress was 13. For the 13 most recent Congr esses (corresponding to Congresses during the Clinton, George W. Bush, Obama, and Trump presidencies), the median number of circuit court nominees whose nominations were returned to a President at the end of a Congress was 9, while the median number of district court nominations returned was 20.\nNo circuit court nominees had nominations returned at the end of the 95 th Congress (during the Carter presidency) or during the 99 th Congress (during the Reagan presidency). \nThe 106 th Congress, during the Clinton presidency, had the greatest number of circuit court nominees whose nominations were returned at the end of a Congress (17)\u2014followed by the 107 th and 108 th Congresses, both during the George W. Bush presidency, when 15 circuit court nominations were returned at the end of each Congress. \nThe greatest percentage of circuit court nominees who had nominations returned, as a percentage of all nominees who were nominated during a Congress, occurred at the end of the 114 th Congress during the Obama presidency (seven of nine nominations, or 77.8%, were returned).\n\n\t\tU.S. District Court Nominees\n\nA single district court nominee had a nomination returned at the end of each of the 95 th and 97 th Congresses during the Carter and Reagan presidencies, respectively. \nThe 115 th Congress had the greatest number of district court nominees whose nominations were returned at the end of a Congress (56). \nThe smallest percentage of district court nominees who had nominations returned, as a percentage of all nominees who were nominated during a Congress, occurred at the end of the 97 th Congress, 1981-1982, during the Reagan presidency (1 of 69, or 1.4%, were returned).\nThe greatest percentage of district court nominees who had nominations returned, as a percentage of all nominees who were nominated during a Congress, occurred at the end of the 114 th Congress, 2015-2016, during the Obama presidency (43 of 61 nominations, or 70.5%, were returned).\n Table 6 does not indicate when, during a Congress, a President submitted nominations to the Senate. If nominations are submitted for the first time relatively late in a Congress, it may not give the Senate adequate time to act on them prior to adjournment. \n\n\tTime from Nomination to Confirmation\n\nThis section provides, for nominees confirmed by the Senate from 1977 through 2018, the median number of days from nomination to confirmation by presidency and by Congress. In general, the length of time from when a President nominates an individual to a vacant circuit or district court judgeship to when the Senate approves that nomination has steadily increased, for most nominees, since 1977. \nIn addition to the general increase in the length of time of the confirmation process itself, an individual nominee might experience a relatively longer period of time from nomination to confirmation due to opposition to the nomination by the nonpresidential party in the Senate; committee and floor scheduling decisions unrelated to partisan opposition to the nomination; and delays in receiving requested background information from the nominee.\n\n\t\tBy Presidency\n\nAs shown by Table 7 , the median number of days from nomination to confirmation for U.S. circuit court nominees for completed presidencies ranged from a low of 45.0 days during the Reagan presidency to a high of 229.0 days during the Obama presidency.\nFollowing the Reagan presidency, the median number of days from nomination to confirmation increased during each successive completed presidency (increasing to 83.0 days during the George H. W. Bush presidency, 139.0 days during the Clinton presidency, 216.0 days during the George W. Bush presidency, and 229.0 days during the Obama presidency). \nThe first two years of the Trump presidency, with a median of 140.5 days, represent a decline in this trend.\nIf the average, rather than the median, is used to measure the length of time a President's circuit court nominees waited from nomination to confirmation, the average number of days from nomination to confirmation for completed presidencies ranged from a low of 68.7 days during the Reagan presidency to a high of 350.6 days during the George W. Bush presidency.\nFor completed presidencies, the median number of days from nomination to confirmation for U.S. district court nominees ranged from a low of 41.0 days during the Reagan presidency to a high of 215.0 days during the Obama presidency.\nFollowing the Reagan presidency, the median number of days from nomination to confirmation increased during each successive completed presidency (increasing to 93.0 days during the George H. W. Bush presidency, 99.0 days during the Clinton presidency, 141.0 days during the George W. Bush presidency, and to 215.0 days during the Obama presidency). \nThe first two years of the Trump presidency, with a median of 235.0 days, represented a continuation of this upward trend.\n\n\t\t\tU.S. Circuit Court Nominees\n\n Figure 1 shows, for each U.S. circuit court nominee who was confirmed from 1977 through 2018, the number of days from when that individual was first nominated to when he or she was confirmed by the Senate. The particular circuit court nominee who waited the longest period of time from nomination to confirmation is also labeled for each presidency. \n\n\t\t\t\t365 or More Days from Nomination to Confirmation\n\nAs shown by the figure, there was a notable increase after the George H. W. Bush presidency in the number of nominees who waited one year or more from nomination to confirmation. During the Carter, Reagan, and George H. W. Bush presidencies, no circuit court nominees waited 365 days or more to be confirmed. \nDuring the Clinton presidency, there were 12 circuit court nominees who waited one year or more to be confirmed. The number of circuit court nominees who waited at least 365 days to be confirmed increased further, to a high of 18, during the George W. Bush presidency. During the Obama presidency, there were 8 circuit court nominees who waited at least one year to be confirmed. \nDuring the first two years of the Trump presidency, none of the 30 circuit court nominees whose nominations were confirmed by the Senate waited at least 365 days to be confirmed.\nOverall, 18% of President Clinton's circuit court nominees waited at least 365 days to be confirmed, 30% of President George W. Bush's nominees waited at least this long (the highest among the six completed presidencies), and 15% of President Obama's nominees waited at least 365 days.\n\n\t\t\t\t90 or Fewer Days from Nomination to Confirmation\n\nDuring the Carter and Reagan presidencies, 47 and 63 circuit court nominees, respectively, waited 90 or fewer days from nomination to confirmation. During the George H. W. Bush presidency, 24 circuit court nominees waited 90 or fewer days to confirmation. President Clinton had 18 circuit court nominees confirmed within 90 days (i.e., within approximately three months) of being nominated, while President George W. Bush had 11 such nominees. President Obama had 2 circuit court nominees confirmed within three months of being nominated (the lowest number among the completed presidencies).\nDuring the first two years of the Trump presidency, eight circuit court nominees were confirmed within 90 or fewer days of being nominated.\nOverall, 84% of President Carter's circuit court nominees were confirmed within 90 days of being nominated. During the Reagan presidency, 76% of circuit court nominees were confirmed within 90 days of nomination, while during the George H. W. Bush presidency 57% of circuit court nominees were confirmed within this time frame. \nDuring the Clinton presidency, the percentage of circuit court nominees approved by the Senate within 90 days fell below half of all circuit court nominees confirmed (to 26%). The percentage of nominees confirmed in 90 or fewer days decreased further during both the George W. Bush presidency (to 16%) and the Obama presidency (to 4%, the lowest percentage among the six completed presidencies).\nDuring the first two years of the Trump presidency, 27% of circuit court nominees were confirmed within 90 days of being nominated.\n\n\t\t\tU.S. District Court Nominees\n\n Figure 2 shows, for each U.S. district court nominee who was confirmed from 1977 through 2018, the number of days from when that individual was first nominated to when he or she was confirmed by the Senate. The particular district court nominee who waited the longest period of time from nomination to confirmation is also labeled for each presidency.\n\n\t\t\t\t365 or More Days from Nomination to Confirmation\n\nAs shown by the figure, there was a notable increase after the George H. W. Bush presidency in the number of nominees who waited one year or more from nomination to confirmation. During the Carter and Reagan presidencies, a combined total of five district court nominees waited 365 days or more to be confirmed. No district court nominees during the George H. W. Bush presidency waited 365 or more days from nomination to confirmation.\nDuring the Clinton presidency, there were 14 district court nominees who waited one year or more to be confirmed. The number of district court nominees who waited at least 365 days to be confirmed increased further, to a high of 17, during the George W. Bush presidency. During the Obama presidency, there were 16 district court nominees who waited at least 365 days to be confirmed (which was the second highest among the completed presidencies).\nDuring the first two years of the Trump presidency, there were six district court nominees who waited at least 365 days from nomination to confirmation.\nOverall, 5% of President Clinton's district court nominees waited at least 365 days to be confirmed, 7% of President George W. Bush's nominees waited at least this long, and 6% of President Obama's nominees waited at least 365 days. \nDuring the first two years of the Trump presidency, 11% of district court nominees waited at least 365 days from nomination to confirmation.\n\n\t\t\t\t90 or Fewer Days from Nomination to Confirmation\n\nDuring the Carter and Reagan presidencies, 157 and 234 district court nominees, respectively, waited 90 or fewer days from nomination to confirmation. During the George H. W. Bush presidency, 72 district court nominees waited 90 or fewer days to confirmation. President Clinton had 129 district court nominees confirmed within 90 days (i.e., within approximately three months) of being nominated, while President George W. Bush had 41 such nominees. President Obama had five district court nominees, the fewest of any completed presidency, confirmed within three months of being nominated.\nDuring the first two years of the Trump presidency, two district court nominees were confirmed within 90 or fewer days of being nominated.\nOverall, 78% of President Carter's district court nominees were confirmed within 90 days of being nominated. During the Reagan presidency, 81% of district court nominees were confirmed within 90 days of nomination, while during the George H. W. Bush presidency 49% of district nominees were confirmed within this time frame. \nDuring the Clinton and George W. Bush presidencies, the percentage of district court nominees approved by the Senate within 90 days declined further to 42% and 16%, respectively. During the Obama presidency, the percentage of nominees confirmed in 90 or fewer days was 2% (the lowest percentage of the completed presidencies).\nDuring the first two years of the Trump presidency, 4% of district court nominees were confirmed within 90 days of being nominated.\n\n\t\tBy Congress\n\n Table 8 reports the median number of days from nomination to confirmation for U.S. circuit and district court nominees whose nominations were approved by the Senate from the 95 th Congress through the 115 th Congress. \n\n\t\t\tU.S. Circuit Court Nominees\n\nFor circuit court nominees, the median number of days from nomination to confirmation ranged from a low of 28.0 days during the 97 th Congress (1981-1982) to a high of 331.0 days during the 114 th Congress (2015-2016). The second-shortest median number of days from nomination to confirmation was 29.0 days during the 95 th Congress (1977-1978), while the second-highest median number of days was 281.5 days during the 109 th Congress (2005-2006).\nThe median number of days from nomination to confirmation for U.S. circuit court nominees stayed above 200 days from the 106 th through 114 th Congresses. In contrast, for the 115 th Congress, the median number of days from nomination to confirmation (140.5 days, or 4.6 months) declined to its lowest point since the 103 rd Congress.\nIf the average, rather than the median, is used to measure the length of time circuit court nominees waited from nomination to confirmation, the average number of days from nomination to confirmation ranged from a low of 32.6 days during the 95 th Congress to a high of 562.9 days during the 109 th Congress. Additionally, the average time from nomination to confirmation for U.S. circuit court nominees increases by more than 30 days, relative to the median, for the 106 th Congress (to 373.9 days); 105 th Congress (303.1 days); 108 th Congress (287.2 days); 113 th Congress (281.2 days); and 110 th Congress (268.8 days). \n\n\t\t\tU.S. District Court Nominees\n\nFor U.S. district court nominees, the median number of days from nomination to confirmation ranged from a low of 26.0 days during the 98 th Congress (1983-1984) to a high of 299.5 days during the 114 th Congress (2015-2016). The second-shortest median was 30.0 days during the 97 th Congress (1981-1982), while the second-longest median was 235.0 days during the 115 th Congress (2017-2018).\nThe median number of days from nomination to confirmation during the 115 th Congress was the fourth consecutive Congress for which the median wait time from nomination to confirmation for district court nominees was greater than 200 days. The first Congress during which the median wait time for district court nominees exceeded 200 days was the 112 th Congress (2011-2012).\n Figure 3 displays the overall trends in the median number of days from nomination to confirmation for U.S. circuit and district court nominees who were confirmed from the 95 th Congress through the 115 th Congress (and also indicates the corresponding presidency for each Congress during this period). \nFor circuit court nominees, the five greatest increases in the number of median days from nomination to confirmation occurred during the 114 th Congress (an increase of 102.0 days from the 113 th Congress); the 109 th Congress (an increase of 80.5 days from the 108 th Congress); 100 th Congress (an increase of 73.0 days from the 99 th Congress); 104 th Congress (an increase of 68.0 days from the 103 rd Congress); and the 107 th Congress (an increase of 52.0 days from the 106 th Congress).\nMost recently, from the 114 th to 115 th Congress, the median number of days from nomination to confirmation for U.S. circuit court nominees declined from 331.0 to 140.5 days.\nFor district court nominees, the five greatest increases in the number of median days from nomination to confirmation occurred during the 114 th Congress (an increase of 96.5 days from the 113 th Congress); 112 th Congress (an increase of 85.0 days from the 111 th Congress); 110 th Congress (an increase of 67.0 days from the 109 th Congress); 100 th Congress (an increase of 57.0 days from the 99 th Congress); and the 102 nd Congress (an increase of 45.5 days from the 101 st Congress).\nMost recently, from the 114 th to 115 th Congress, the median number of days from nomination to confirmation for U.S. district court nominees declined from 299.5 to 235.0 days.\n\n\tTime from Nomination to Committee Hearing\n\nThe President customarily transmits a circuit or district court nomination to the Senate in the form of a written nomination message. Once received, the nomination is numbered by the Senate executive clerk, read on the floor, and then immediately referred to the Judiciary Committee.\nThe Judiciary Committee's processing of the nomination typically consists of three phases\u2014a prehearing phase, the holding of a hearing on the nomination, and voting on whether to report the nomination to the Senate. During a hearing on the nomination, lower court nominees engage in a question-and-answer session with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The hearing typically is held for more than one judicial nominee at a time.\nFrom 1977 through 2018, the median length of time from when an individual was first nominated to a circuit court judgeship to when he or she received a hearing by the Judiciary Committee was 63.0 days (or 2.1 months). During this same period, the median length of time from when an individual was nominated to a district court judgeship to when he or she received a hearing was also 63.0 days.\nAs shown in Table 9 , the median length of time from nomination to committee hearing for circuit and district court nominees has, however, varied across presidencies. For individuals nominated during more recent presidencies, the length of time from nomination to committee hearing has been relatively longer than the median for all nominees from 1977 through 2018.\nThe median number of days from nomination to committee hearing for U.S. circuit court nominees ranged from a low of 23.0 days (during the Reagan presidency) to a high of 154.0 days (during the George W. Bush presidency). \nFor the first two years of the Trump presidency, the median number of days from nomination to hearing for U.S. circuit court nominees was 69.0 days.\nThe median number of days from nomination to committee hearing for U.S. district court nominees ranged from a low of 22.0 days (during the Reagan presidency) to a high of 87.5 days (during the George W. Bush presidency). \nFor the first two years of the Trump presidency, the median number of days from nomination to hearing for U.S. district court nominees was 77.0 days.\n\n\tTime from Committee Report to Confirmation\n\nAfter a nominee receives a hearing by the Judiciary Committee, she awaits a vote by the committee on whether her nomination will be reported to the Senate as a whole. If the nomination is not put to the committee for a vote, or if the committee votes against reporting it (i.e., rejects the nomination), the nomination will not move forward, ultimately failing to receive Senate confirmation.\nThe committee, in reporting a nomination to the Senate as a whole, has three options\u2014to report a nomination favorably, unfavorably, or without recommendation. Almost always, when the committee votes on a nomination, it votes to report favorably. The committee, however, may vote (as it has done in the past, but only on rare occasions) to report unfavorably or without recommendation. Such a vote advances the nomination for Senate consideration despite the lack of majority support for it in committee. After it is reported by the Judiciary Committee, a circuit or district court nomination is listed on the Executive Calendar and is eligible for floor consideration.\nThe nominees who are included in this part of the analysis all had their nominations reported by the Judiciary Committee (i.e., their nominations advanced to the full Senate for consideration) and were confirmed by the Senate.\nFrom 1977 through 2018, the median length of time from when an individual who was nominated to a circuit court judgeship had his nomination reported by the Judiciary Committee to when he was confirmed by the Senate was 9.0 days. During this same period, the median length of time from when a district court nominee had his nomination reported to when he was confirmed was 8.0 days.\nThere was, however, variation during this period across presidencies in how long circuit and district court nominees waited to be confirmed once their nominations were reported by the Judiciary Committee\u2014with nominees during more recent presidencies waiting longer to be confirmed once their nominations were reported by the committee. \nAs shown by Table 10 , for completed presidencies, the median number of days from committee report to confirmation for U.S. circuit court nominees ranged from a low of 1.0 day (during the George H. W. Bush presidency) to a high of 98.0 days (during the Obama presidency).\nFor the first two years of the Trump presidency, the median number of days from committee report to confirmation was 26.0 days.\nFor completed presidencies, the median number of days from committee report to confirmation for U.S. district court nominees ranged from a low of 1.0 day (during the George H. W. Bush presidency) to a high of 84.0 days (during the Obama presidency). \nFor the first two years of the Trump presidency, the median number of days from committee report to confirmation for U.S. district court nominees was 133.0 days.\n\n\tRatings by the American Bar Association for Confirmed Nominees\n\nSince 1953, every presidential Administration, except those of George W. Bush and Donald Trump, has sought prenomination evaluations of its candidates for district and circuit court judgeships by the American Bar Association (ABA). \nThe committee that performs this evaluation, the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, is made up of 15 lawyers with various professional experiences. The stated objective of the committee is to assist the White House in assessing whether prospective judicial nominees should be nominated. It seeks to do so by providing what it describes as an \"impartial peer-review evaluation\" of each candidate's professional qualifications. This evaluation, according to the committee, focuses strictly on a candidate's \"integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament\" and does not take into account the candidate's \"philosophy, political affiliation or ideology.\" In evaluating professional competence, the committee assesses the prospective nominee's \"intellectual capacity, judgment, writing and analytical abilities, knowledge of the law, and breadth of professional experience.\"\nFollowing the multistep evaluation process by the committee, a nominee is given an official rating of \"well qualified,\" \"qualified,\" or \"not qualified.\" A rating is provided strictly on an advisory basis; it is solely in the President's discretion as to how much weight to place on a judicial candidate's ABA rating in deciding whether to nominate him or her.\nAs shown by Table 11 , there is some variation across presidencies in the percentage of confirmed U.S. circuit and district court nominees who received a particular rating by the ABA. For U.S. circuit court nominees for completed presidencies, the percentage who received a well qualified rating ranged from a low of 56.6% during the Reagan presidency to a high of 80.0% during the Obama presidency. \nDuring the first two years of the Trump presidency, 80.0% of confirmed circuit court nominees also received a well qualified rating. \nNone of the completed presidencies listed in the table had any confirmed circuit court nominees who were rated as not qualified by the ABA. \nDuring the first two years of the Trump presidency, two circuit court nominees were rated as not qualified (comprising 6.7% of the circuit court nominees confirmed during this period).\nFor confirmed U.S. district court nominees, the percentage who received a well qualified rating ranged from a low of 51.0% during the Carter presidency to a high of 69.3% during the George W. Bush presidency. During the first two years of the Trump presidency, 62.3% of confirmed district court nominees received a well qualified rating. \nFor completed presidencies during which at least one confirmed district court nominee was rated as not qualified, the percentage of nominees who received such a rating ranged from a high of 1.5% of all confirmed nominees during the Carter and George W. Bush presidencies to a low of 1.3% of such nominees during the Clinton presidency. During the first two years of the Trump presidency, 3.8% of confirmed district court nominees received a rating of not qualified.\n\n\tFrequency of Roll Call Votes for Confirmed Nominees\n\nThe Senate may confirm nominations by unanimous consent, voice vote, or by recorded roll call vote. When the question of whether to confirm a nomination is put to the Senate, a roll call vote will be taken on the nomination if the Senate has ordered \"the yeas and nays.\" The support of 11 Senators is necessary to order the roll call.\nHistorically, the Senate confirmed most U.S. circuit and district court nominations by unanimous consent or by voice vote. As shown by Figure 4 , however, using roll call votes to confirm nominees has become much more common during recent presidencies. \nA relatively small percentage of circuit court nominees were confirmed by roll call vote during the Carter, Reagan, and George H. W. Bush presidencies. Specifically, 7.1%, 6.0%, and 2.4% of circuit court nominees were confirmed by roll call during each of these three presidencies, respectively.\nAdditionally, only one district court nominee was confirmed by roll call vote during each of the Carter and Reagan presidencies, and no district court nominees were confirmed by roll call vote during George H. W. Bush's presidency.\nConfirmation by roll call vote became more common during the Clinton presidency, with nearly one-quarter, 24.6%, of circuit court nominees and 10.5% of district court nominees receiving roll call votes at the time of Senate confirmation.\nIt was not, however, until the George W. Bush presidency that a majority of lower court nominees were approved using roll call votes, with 80.3% of circuit court nominees and 54.0% of district court nominees confirmed in this way. This trend continued under President Obama, with 89.1% of circuit court nominees and 64.6% of district court nominees being confirmed by roll call vote.\nDuring the first two years of the Trump presidency, all U.S. circuit court nominees were confirmed using roll call votes, representing an increase from recent years in the frequency of using roll call votes to confirm circuit court nominees. In contrast, 50.9% of district court nominees were confirmed by roll call vote, representing a decrease from recent years in the frequency of using roll call votes to confirm district court nominees. \n\n\t\tNumber of Nay Votes Received\n\nThe increased frequency with which roll call votes have been used to confirm U.S. circuit and district court nominations has not always been correlated with Senators using roll call votes to express opposition to a nominee by voting against his or her nomination. As shown by Figure 5 , there is notable variation in the number of nay votes received by circuit and district court nominations when they have been confirmed by roll call vote. \nThe figure shows the number of nominations that received zero nay votes at the time of confirmation. For nominations that received at least one nay vote, the roll call data are presented using five ranges to reflect the number of nay votes received by a President's nominees: (1) 1 to 10 nay votes; (2) 11 to 20 nay votes; (3) 21 to 30 nay votes; (4) 31 to 40 nay votes; and (5) more than 40 nay votes.\nDuring the Clinton presidency, 12 (75.0%) of 16 circuit court nominees who were confirmed by roll call vote received at least one nay vote (with 9, or 56.2%, receiving more than 20 nay votes). Of the 32 district court nominees who were confirmed by roll call vote, 18 (56.2%) received at least one nay vote. \nIn contrast to the Clinton presidency, a majority of the circuit and district court nominees approved by roll call vote during the George W. Bush and Obama presidencies were confirmed after having received zero nay votes. During the Bush presidency, 30 (61.2%) of 49 circuit court nominees confirmed by roll call votes received zero nay votes. For the 141 district court nominees confirmed by roll call vote, 136 (96.4%) received zero nay votes.\nDuring the Obama presidency, 26 (53.1%) of 49 circuit court nominees confirmed by roll call vote received zero nay votes. For the 173 district court nominees confirmed by roll call vote, 95 (54.9%) received zero nay votes.\nDuring the first two years of the Trump presidency, 18 (60.0%) of 30 circuit court nominees approved by roll call vote were confirmed with more than 40 nay votes. In contrast, 2 (6.7%) were confirmed with zero nay votes. For district court nominees, 17 (63.0%) of 27 confirmed by roll call vote received at least one nay vote (while 10, or 37.0%, received zero nay votes). Of the 17 who received at least one nay vote, a plurality (5, or 29.4%) received more than 40 nay votes.\n\n\tDemographic Characteristics of Confirmed Nominees\n\nThis section provides data related to the gender and race of U.S. circuit and district court nominees confirmed by the Senate during each presidency since the Carter Administration. These particular demographic characteristics of judicial nominees are of ongoing interest to Congress. Such interest is demonstrated especially at the time circuit and district court nominations are considered by the Senate. For example, floor statements by Senators in support of circuit or district court nominees frequently emphasize the particular demographic characteristics of nominees who would enhance the diversity of the federal judiciary. \n\n\t\tGender\n\nAs shown by Figure 6 , for completed presidencies, the percentage of confirmed U.S. circuit court nominees who were women ranged from a low of 7.2% during the Reagan presidency to a high of 43.6% during the Obama presidency. \nFor district court nominees, the percentage of confirmed nominees who were women ranged from a low of 8.3% during the Reagan presidency to a high of 41.0% during the Obama presidency. \nDuring the first two years of the Trump presidency, 20.0% of confirmed U.S. circuit court nominees were women, while 26.4% of confirmed district court nominees were women.\n\n\t\tRace\n\n Figure 7 shows the percentage of each President's confirmed U.S. circuit and district court nominees who were African American, Asian American, Hispanic, and white.\n\n\t\t\tConfirmed African American Nominees\n\nFor completed presidencies, the percentage of confirmed U.S. circuit court nominees who were African American ranged from a low of 1.2% during the Reagan presidency to a high of 16.4% during the Obama presidency. \nDuring the first two years of the Trump presidency, no confirmed circuit court nominees were African American.\nFor completed presidencies, the percentage of confirmed U.S. district court nominees who were African American ranged from a low of 2.1% during the Reagan presidency to a high of 18.7% during the Obama presidency. \nDuring the first two years of the Trump presidency, 1.9% of confirmed district court nominees were African American.\n\n\t\t\tConfirmed Asian American Nominees\n\nFor completed presidencies, there were no Asian American circuit court judges appointed during the Reagan, George H. W. Bush, or George W. Bush presidencies. The greatest percentage was appointed during the Obama presidency (7.3%).\nDuring the first two years of the Trump presidency, 10.0% of confirmed circuit court nominees were Asian American.\nFor past presidencies, there were no Asian American district court judges appointed during the George H. W. Bush presidency. The greatest percentage was appointed during the Obama presidency (5.2%).\nDuring the first two years of the Trump presidency, 3.8% of confirmed district court nominees were Asian American.\n\n\t\t\tConfirmed Hispanic Nominees\n\nFor completed presidencies, the percentage of confirmed U.S. circuit court nominees who were Hispanic ranged from a low of 1.2% during the Reagan presidency to a high of 10.9% during the Obama presidency. \nDuring the first two years of the Trump presidency, no confirmed circuit court nominees were Hispanic.\nFor completed presidencies, the percentage of confirmed U.S. district court nominees who were Hispanic ranged from a low of 4.1% during the George H. W. Bush presidency to a high of 10.3% during the George W. Bush presidency. \nDuring the first two years of the Trump presidency, 1.9% of confirmed district court nominees were Hispanic.", "source": "gov_report_summ", "evaluation": "rouge"}
{"instructions": ["Please help me summarize this government report."], "outputs": ["Section 420 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (P.L. 93-288, hereinafter the Stafford Act) authorizes the President to \"declare\" a Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAG). In the interest of saving time, the authority to make the declaration has been delegated to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Regional Administrators. Once issued, the FMAG declaration authorizes various forms of federal fire suppression assistance such as the provision of equipment, personnel, and grants to state, local, and tribal governments for the control, management, and mitigation of any fire on certain public or private forest land or grassland that might become a major disaster. This federal assistance requires a cost-sharing component such that state, local, and tribal governments are responsible for 25% of the expenses.\nThis report answers frequently asked questions about FMAGs. This report will be updated as events warrant."], "input": "\tIntroduction\n\nSection 420 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act ( P.L. 93-288 , hereinafter the Stafford Act) authorizes the President to \"declare\" a Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAG). The current FMAG system was established by regulation in October of 2001. These grants provide federal assistance for fire suppression activities. This authority has been delegated to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Regional Administrators. Once issued, the FMAG declaration authorizes various forms of federal assistance such as the provision of equipment, personnel, and grants to state, local, and tribal governments for the control, management, and mitigation of any fire on certain public or private forest land or grassland that might become a major disaster. This federal assistance requires a cost-sharing component such that state, local, and tribal governments are responsible for 25% of the expenses.\nThis report discusses the most frequently asked questions received by the Congressional Research Service on FMAGs. It addresses questions regarding how FMAGs are requested, how requests are evaluated using thresholds, and the types of assistance provided under an FMAG declaration.\n\n\tDeclaration Process\n\n\t\tHow are FMAGs Requested?\n\nFMAGs can be requested by a state when the governor determines that a fire is burning out of control and threatens to become a major disaster. At that point, a request for assistance can be submitted to FEMA. Typically, requests are submitted to the FEMA Regional Administrator. Requests can be submitted any time\u2014day or night\u2014and can be submitted by telephone to expedite the process. Telephone requests must be followed by written confirmation within 14 days of the phone request.\n\n\t\tCan a Tribal Leader Request an FMAG Declaration?\n\nUnder the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 (SRIA, Division B of P.L. 113-2 ), tribes are equivalent to states in their ability to request a major disaster declaration, an emergency declaration, or a request for an FMAG declaration.\nNote that some tribal land holdings are administered by the federal government and, therefore, receive fire suppression support through the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC). The NIFC supports interagency \"wildland\" firefighting efforts on federal lands by the U.S. Forest Service, National Weather Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and FEMA's U.S. Fire Administration. Unlike FMAGs, such support generally does not require tribes to reimburse firefighting costs (FMAGs require the state to pay a 25% cost-share). In addition, tribes with their own fire suppression resources may receive reimbursement from BIA for their costs related to fire suppression on tribal lands.\n\n\t\tWhat Information Needs to Be Included in the FMAG Request?\n\nThe FMAG request should include cost estimates to support the request as well as information about the fire including the size of the fire(s) in acres or square miles, the population of the community (or communities) threatened, the number of persons evacuated (if applicable), weather conditions, and the degree to which state and local resources are committed to this fire and other fires in federal, state, and/or local jurisdictions. The verbal request must be followed up with a completed \"Request for Fire Management Assistance Declaration\" (FEMA form 078-0-1) and the \"Principal Advisor's Report\" (FEMA form 078-0-2).\n\n\t\tHow Is FMAG Assistance Determined?\n\nThe following criteria are used to evaluate wildfires and make a determination whether to issue an FMAG:\nthe threat to lives and property including critical facilities, infrastructures, and watershed areas; the availability of state and local fire resources; high fire danger conditions based on nationally accepted indices such as the National Fire Danger Ratings System; and the potential economic impacts of the fire.\nIn addition, FEMA has developed fire cost thresholds that are typically updated on an annual basis. There are two types of fire cost thresholds used to help determine if a state or tribal nation is eligible for fire assistance: (1) individual thresholds for a single fire, and (2) cumulative thresholds for multiple fires. Cumulative thresholds are applied to multiple fires burning simultaneously, or the accumulation of multiple fires in a single fire season. Threshold amounts vary by state (see Table 1 ). Taking Pennsylvania as an example, generally, a single fire would need to meet or exceed $927,274 in damages for Pennsylvania to be eligible for an FMAG declaration. \nIn contrast, the formula for the cumulative fire threshold for a given state is one of two amounts\u2014$500,000 or the amount of that state's individual fire threshold multiplied by three, whichever is greater. Returning to the Pennsylvania example, the sum of three individual fire thresholds equals $2,781,822. Since that amount is larger than $500,000, cumulative fire damages in Pennsylvania must meet or exceed $2,781,822 to be eligible for assistance. In contrast, the individual fire threshold for Alaska is $100,000, but the cumulative threshold is $500,000, not the sum of three individual fire thresholds ($300,000).\n\n\t\tCan Denials for FMAG Assistance Be Appealed?\n\nIf FEMA denies the request for assistance, the state has one opportunity to appeal the denial. The appeal must be submitted in writing to the Regional Administrator no later than 30 days from the date of the denial letter. The appeal should contain any additional information that strengthens the original request for assistance. The Regional Administrator will review the appeal, prepare a recommendation, and forward the appeal package to the FEMA Headquarters Office. The FEMA Headquarters Office will notify the state of its determination in writing within 90 days of receipt of the appeal (or receipt of additional requested information).\nThe state may request a time extension to submit the appeal. The request for an extension must be submitted in writing to the Regional Administrator no later than 30 days from the date of the denial letter. The request for an extension must include a justification for the need for an extension. The FEMA Headquarters Office will notify the state in writing whether the extension request is granted or denied.\n\n\t\tDoes an FMAG Exclude the Possibility of an Emergency or Major Disaster Declaration Under the Stafford Act?\n\nNo, an emergency or major disaster can be declared after an FMAG declaration has been issued. However, the emergency or major disaster declaration must be initiated by a separate request for assistance by the state or tribal government. \n\n\tFunding\n\n\t\tHow Are FMAGs Funded?\n\nFMAGs are funded through FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), the main account FEMA uses to provide disaster assistance. The DRF is a no-year account\u2014unused funds from the previous fiscal year are carried over to the next fiscal year. \nFunds in the DRF fall into two categories. The first category is for disaster relief costs associated with major disasters under the Stafford Act. This category reflects the impact of the Budget Control Act ( P.L. 112-25 , BCA), which allows appropriations to cover the costs incurred as a result of major disasters to be paid through an \"allowable adjustment\" to the discretionary spending limits. The second category is colloquially known as \"base funding.\" Base funding includes activities not tied to major disasters under the Stafford Act. Base funding is scored as discretionary spending that counts against the discretionary spending limits, whereas FMAGs are funded through the DRF's base funding category. \n\n\t\tCan FMAGs Still Be Issued If the DRF Balance Is Low?\n\nThe decision to issue a FMAG declaration is not contingent on the DRF balance. Similarly, FMAGs do not reduce the amount of funding available for major disasters. When the DRF balance was low in the past, FEMA used its \"immediate needs funding\" (INF) policy until supplemental appropriations were passed to replenish the DRF. Under INF, long-term projects (such as mitigation work) are put on hold and only activities deemed urgent are funded. FMAGs would most likely fall into the category of events with an \"urgent\" need. Under the INF policy, FEMA also delays interagency reimbursements, and recovers funds from previous years in order to stretch its available funds. \n\n\t\tWhat Are the Cost-Share Requirements for FMAGs?\n\nAs with many other Stafford Act disaster assistance grant programs (Public Assistance, Hazard Mitigation Grant assistance, Other Needs Assistance) the cost-share for FMAGs is based on a federal share of 75% of eligible expenses. The grantee (the state) and subgrantees (local communities) assume the remaining 25% of eligible costs. \n\n\t\tDoes FEMA Advance Funds to States or Reimburse States for Completed Work?\n\nUnder the FMAG process, FEMA reimburses grantees for eligible activities they have undertaken. The state application for specific grant funds must be submitted within 90 days after the FMAG is granted. That time frame permits the state to gather all information and supporting data on potentially eligible spending to include in their grant application package. The package must also stipulate that the fire cost threshold was met. Following submission of the grant application FEMA has 45 days to approve or deny the application.\n\n\tFMAG Assistance\n\n\t\tWhat Types of Assistance Are Provided Under an FMAG Declaration?\n\nFMAG assistance is similar in some basic respects to other FEMA assistance. For example, FMAGs will not replicate or displace the work of other federal agencies, nor will FEMA pay straight-time salaries for public safety forces, though it will reimburse overtime expenses for the event. Other eligible expenses can include costs for\nequipment and supplies (less insurance proceeds); mobilization and demobilization; emergency work (evacuations and sheltering, police barricading and traffic control, arson investigation); prepositioning federal, out-of-state, and international resources for up to 21 days when approved by the FEMA Regional Administrator; personal comfort and safety items for firefighter health and safety; field camps and meals in lieu of per diem; and/or the mitigation, management, and control of declared fires burning on comingled federal land, when such costs are not reimbursable by another federal agency.\n\n\t\tIs Mitigation Funding Included in an FMAG Declaration?\n\nUntil recently, only major disaster declarations made statewide hazard mitigation grants available. Division D of P.L. 115-254 (Disaster Recovery Reform Act, hereinafter DRRA) amended the Stafford Act to make hazard mitigation available for FMAG declarations as well. Under Section 404 of the Stafford Act as amended by DRRA, mitigation grants from the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) are provided to states and tribes on a sliding scale based on the percentage of funds spent for FMAG assistance. For states and federally recognized tribes with a FEMA-approved Standard State or Tribal Mitigation Plan, the formula provides for up to 15% of the first $2 billion of estimated aggregate amounts of disaster assistance, up to 10% for amounts between $2 billion and $10 billion, and 7.5% for amounts between $10 billion and $35.333 billion.\n\n\tInteraction with Other Federal Agencies\n\n\t\tHow Are FMAGs Different from Other Types of Federal Fire Assistance?\n\nFEMA assistance through FMAGs is a direct relationship with the states to assist the state in fighting the fire on state lands. FMAGs are employed so a disaster declaration may not be necessary. The Forest Service and other federal agencies do provide other types of assistance related to wildfire management, such as postfire recovery assistance, or assistance planning and mitigating the potential risk from future wildfires. Most of these programs provide financial and technical assistance to state partners. In addition, other USDA agencies administer various other programs to provide disaster recovery assistance to nonfederal forest landowners, including the Emergency Forest Restoration Program and the Emergency Watershed Program. \n\n\t\tCan FMAG Assistance Be Provided in Conjunction with Assistance from the Forest Service, or Is It Considered a Duplication of Benefits?\n\nThis depends on the type of assistance being provided by the Forest Service. FMAG assistance is not generally available in conjunction with emergency suppression assistance from the Forest Service, or any other federal agency engaged in suppression operations. FMAGs provide assistance for suppression operations on nonfederal lands, whereas suppression operations on federal lands are the responsibility of the federal agency with jurisdiction. Limited exceptions may occur for declared fires on lands in which the ownership is comingled federal and nonfederal, and the costs incurred by the eligible entity are not entitled to any other type of federal reimbursement. However, FMAGs may be provided in conjunction with other Forest Service assistance programs, such as any technical and financial assistance provided through the agency's state and volunteer fire assistance programs or state and private forestry office.\nFMAG and other federal assistance may potentially occur in conjunction when there is a cooperative agreement between federal, state, and other governmental or tribal partners to coordinate emergency wildfire protection and response activities. The cooperative agreement often delineates different geographic areas where the state government is responsible for initial suppression operations, regardless of land ownership, and vice versa, where the federal government may be responsible for providing suppression operations in lands under nonfederal ownership. The cooperative agreements (sometimes referred to as \"fire compacts\") specify how costs are to be apportioned among the partners, including provisions allowing for reimbursement, in accordance with applicable federal and state statutes. In the circumstance where a state (or other eligible entity) conducted suppression operations on federal land and the costs were not reimbursable, an FMAG may potentially be applied for and used to cover eligible costs.\n\n\t\tDo FMAGs Assist with Fires on Federal Lands?\n\nNo, most fires that begin on federal land are the responsibility of the federal agency that owns or manages the land, and are not eligible to receive FMAG assistance. There are some exceptions, however. For example, FMAGs may be available to assist with declared fires that occur in areas with a mix of federal and nonfederal land, if the state has a responsibility for suppression activities under a cooperative agreement with the applicable federal agency, and those costs are not reimbursable under another federal statute.", "source": "gov_report_summ", "evaluation": "rouge"}
{"instructions": ["Please help me summarize this government report."], "outputs": ["Senators and Representatives are frequently asked to support or sponsor proposals recognizing historic events and outstanding achievements by individuals or institutions. Among the various forms of recognition that Congress bestows, the Congressional Gold Medal is often considered the most distinguished. Through this venerable tradition\u2014the occasional commissioning of individually struck gold medals in its name\u2014Congress has expressed public gratitude on behalf of the nation for distinguished contributions for more than two centuries. Since 1776, this award, which initially was bestowed on military leaders, has also been given to such diverse individuals as Sir Winston Churchill and Bob Hope, George Washington and Robert Frost, Joe Louis and Mother Teresa of Calcutta.\nCongressional gold medal legislation generally has a specific format. Once a gold medal is authorized, it follows a specific process for design, minting, and awarding. This process includes consultation and recommendations by the Citizens Coinage Advisory Commission (CCAC) and the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts (CFA), pursuant to any statutory instructions, before the Secretary of the Treasury makes the final decision on a gold medal's design. Once the medal has been struck, a ceremony will often be scheduled to formally award the medal to the recipient.\nIn recent years, the number of gold medals awarded has increased, and some have expressed interest in examining the gold medal awarding process. Should Congress want to make such changes, several individual and institutional options might be available. The individual options include decisions made by Members of Congress as to what individual or groups might be honored; potential specification of gold medal design elements; and where gold medals for groups might be housed once the award is made. The institutional options could include House, Senate, or committee rules for the consideration of gold medal legislation and whether statutory standards on the number of gold medals issued per year or per Congress might be established for gold medals."], "input": "\tIntroduction\n\nSince the late 1700s, Congress has expressed public gratitude to individuals and groups by awarding medals and other similar decorations. The first Congressional Gold Medals were issued by the Continental Congress. Since that time, Congress has awarded gold medals to express public gratitude for distinguished contributions, dramatize the virtues of patriotism, and perpetuate the remembrance of great events. This tradition of authorizing individually struck gold medals bearing the portraits or actions of honorees is rich with history.\nAlthough Congress has approved legislation stipulating specific requirements for numerous other awards and decorations, there are no permanent statutory provisions specifically relating to the creation of Congressional Gold Medals. When such an award has been deemed appropriate, Congress has, by special action, provided for the creation of a personalized medal to be given in its name.\n\n\t\tEarly Practices\n\nThe first Congressional Gold Medals were issued by the Continental Congress. As initially conceived, Congressional Gold Medals were awards \"imbued with the conviction that only the very highest achievements [were] entitled to such a distinction, and that the value of a reward is enhanced by its rarity!\" At that time, the Continental Congress concluded there was no better way to honor \"and preserve the memory of illustrious characters and splendid events than medals\u2014whether we take into consideration the imperishable nature of the substance whence they are formed, the facility of multiplying copies, or the practice of depositing them in the cabinets of the curious.\" The first gold medals were struck in Paris under the direction of Colonel David Humphrey.\nFollowing a long-standing historical practice, Congress commissioned gold medals as tributes for what were considered to be the most distinguished achievements. Silver and bronze medals, and ceremonial swords, were awarded for less eminent, but still notable, accomplishments. However, only the gold medal has been continuously awarded to the present day. \nThe first Congressional Gold Medal was authorized on March 25, 1776, for George Washington, then commander of the Continental Army, for his \"wise and spirited conduct\" in bringing about British evacuation of Boston. During the next 12 years, the Continental Congress authorized an additional six gold medals for Revolutionary military leaders. Table 1 lists the Congressional Gold Medals issued by the Continental Congress, the year, the awardee, and the reason the medal was authorized.\nThe gold medal conferred upon Major Henry \"Light Horse Harry\" Lee for his \"remarkable prudence\" and \"bravery\" during the surprise raid of Paulus Hook, NJ, was the first to be struck in the United States.\n\n\t\t19th Century Recipients\n\nFollowing the ratification of the Constitution, the first two Congressional Gold Medals were given in 1800 to Captain Thomas Truxtun for his gallant effort during the action between the U.S. frigate Constellation and the French ship La Vengeance and in 1805 to Commodore Edward Preble for gallantry and good conduct during the War with Tripoli. After those medals were awarded, Congress issued gold medals primarily for military achievements in the War of 1812 and the Mexican War. All told, 27 gold medals were awarded for the War of 1812, and a series of medals were awarded for expeditions led by Major General Zachary Taylor and Major General Winfield Scott in the Mexican War. General Taylor received three Congressional Gold Medals, while General Scott received one.\nIn 1854, Congress began to broaden the scope of activities that merited a Congressional Gold Medal. This change was prompted by Commander Duncan N. Ingraham of the USS St. Louis 's rescue of Martin Koszta from illegal seizure and imprisonment about the Austrian war-brig Hussar . Subsequently, gold medals were issued to several individuals recognized for nonmilitary heroic activities or their work in specific fields. For example, in 1864 Cornelius Vanderbilt was honored for donating a steamship to the United States; in 1867 Cyrus W. Field was praised for his work in the laying of the transatlantic cable; and Private George F. Robinson was awarded for saving Secretary of State William H. Seward from an assassination attempt. At this time, Congress also established the Medal of Honor as a military award and increasingly focused the Congressional Gold Medal as an award for individuals and events.\n\n\t\t20th and 21st Century Recipients\n\nIn the 20 th and 21 st centuries, Congress continued to broaden the scope of Congressional Gold Medals to include recognition of excellence in such varied fields as the arts, athletics, aviation, diplomacy, entertainment, exploration, medicine, politics, religion, and science. Several of the following individuals were the first in their specialties to be awarded gold medals:\nComposer George M. Cohan (1936) was the first entertainer to receive a gold medal, for his patriotic songs \"Over There\" and \"A Grand Old Flag.\" Wilbur and Orville Wright (1909) were the first aeronautical or space pioneers to receive a gold medal, for their achievements in demonstrating to the world the potential of aerial navigation. Lincoln Ellsworth (1926) was the first explorer honored, for his polar flight in 1925 and transpolar flight in 1926. Major Walter Reed and his associates (1928) were the first scientists honored, for discovering the cause and means of transmission of yellow fever in 1921. Vice President Alben W. Barkley (1949) was the first political honoree.\nIn the late 20 th and early 21 st centuries, numerous other individuals have been honored for a variety of contributions including civil rights activism and humanitarian contributions. For a complete list of Congressional Gold Medal recipients since 1776, see the Appendix .\n\n\tAuthorizing Congressional Gold Medals\n\nOnce a Congressional Gold Medal bill is introduced, it is typically referred to the House Committee on Financial Services or the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. The process for considering legislation varies between the House and Senate. \n\n\t\tHouse of Representatives\n\nIn the House, there are currently no chamber or committee rules regarding the procedures for gold medal bills. In some past Congresses, the House Financial Services Committee had adopted a committee rule that prohibited its Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology Subcommittee from holding a hearing on commemorative medal legislation\u2014including Congressional Gold Medals\u2014\"unless the legislation is cosponsored by at least two-thirds of the members of the House.\" Informal practices regarding cosponosrship requirements, however, may still exist.\n\n\t\tSenate\n\nIn the Senate, the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee in the 116 th Congress requires that at least 67 Senators cosponsor any Congressional Gold Medal bill before being considered by the committee. This committee rule presumably does not formally preclude committee consideration of a House bill referred to it. The committee rule also does not prevent the Senate from considering or passing gold medal legislation. Referred bills may be brought to the floor without committee consideration; in other cases, a bill may avoid being referred to committee at all. In current practice, many enacted gold medal bills receive no formal committee consideration. Rather, the Senate often discharges the committee of the bill by unanimous consent; however, it appears that this discharge practice only occurs after the requisite number of cosponsors sign on to a Senate bill. \n\n\t\tOther Statutory Limitations\n\nAlthough Congress has approved legislation stipulating requirements for numerous other awards and decorations, there are no permanent statutory provisions specifically relating to the creation of Congressional Gold Medals. When a Congressional Gold Medal has been deemed appropriate, Congress has, by legislative action, provided for the creation of a medal on an ad hoc basis. Additionally, there is no statutory limit on the number of Congressional Gold Medals that may be struck in a given year.\n\n\tSample Congressional Gold Medal Language\n\nCongressional Gold Medal legislation generally has certain features, including\nfindings that summarize the subject's history and importance; specifications for awarding the medal; instructions, if any, for the medal's design and striking; permission to mint and sell duplicates; and certification that medals are minted pursuant to existing requirements for national medals (5 U.S.C. \u00a75111).\n\n\t\tFindings\n\nCongressional Gold Medal legislation typically includes a section of findings. These often include historical facts about the people or groups being awarded the medal. For example, the legislation to authorize the Congressional Gold Medal to the World War II members of the \"Doolittle Tokyo Raiders\" stated the following:\n\n\t\tMedal Presentation, Design, and Striking\n\nCongressional Gold Medal legislation typically includes a section that provides details on the presentation, design, and striking of the medal. For example, the legislation to authorize the Congressional Gold Medal to the Foot Soldiers who participated in Bloody Sunday, Turnaround Tuesday, or the final Selma to Montgomery Voting Rights March in March of 1965 stated the following:\nAdditionally, this section can contain specific instructions to the Smithsonian, when it is the recipient of the physical gold medal, on its display and availability to be loaned to other institutions. For example, the legislation authorizing the American Fighter Aces Congressional Gold Medal stated the following:\n\n\t\tDuplicate Medals\n\nGold medal legislation also generally authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to strike and sell duplicate medals in bronze. The duplicates are generally sold in two sizes: 1.5 inches and 3 inches. Duplicates are sold at a price which allows the U.S. Mint to cover the cost of striking the gold medal. For example, legislation authorizing the 65 th Infantry Regiment, known as the Borinqueneers, Congressional Gold Medal stated the following:\n\n\t\tStatus of Medals\n\nGold medal legislation generally contains a statement that these awards are considered as national medals for the purpose of the U.S. Mint's statutory requirements for producing medals. For example, legislation authorizing the Montford Point Marines Congressional Gold Medal stated the following:\n\n\t\tAuthorization of Appropriations; Proceeds\n\nIn some cases, authorizing legislation includes language authorizing appropriations for a Congressional Gold Medal. In these examples, Congress has authorized a specific sum from the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund to pay for the cost of the medal. In cases where the authorization of appropriations is provided, a provision requiring that proceeds from the sale of duplicates be deposited in the same Fund is generally included. For example, legislation authorizing the Women Airforce Service Pilots Congressional Gold Medal stated the following:\n\n\tDesign of Medals\n\nCongressional Gold Medal designs vary for each issuance. In general, the authorizing legislation provides that the Secretary of the Treasury \"shall strike a gold medal with suitable emblems, devices, and inscriptions, to be determined by the Secretary.\" When designing a Congressional Gold Medal, the Secretary consults with the Citizens Coinage Advisory Commission (CCAC) and the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) before determining the final design.\n\n\t\tCitizens Coinage Advisory Commission\n\nEstablished by P.L. 108-15 , the CCAC advises the Secretary of the Treasury on theme and design of all U.S. coins and medals. For Congressional Gold Medals, the CCAC advises the Secretary \"on any theme or design proposals relating to ... Congressional Gold Medals.\"\nThe CCAC consists of 11 members appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury, with four persons appointed upon the recommendation of the congressional leadership (one each by the Speaker of the House, the House minority leader, the Senate majority leader, and the Senate minority leader). The CCAC meets several times each year to consider design suggestions for coins and medals. For each coin considered, the CCAC provides advice to the Secretary \"on thematic, technical, and design issues related to the production of coins.\" Recommendations are then published to the committee's website, at http://www.ccac.gov .\n\n\t\tU.S. Commission of Fine Arts\n\nIn tandem with recommendations received from the CCAC, the U.S. Mint also seeks a recommendation from the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts. Established in 1910, the CFA advises \"upon the location of statues, fountains, and monuments in the public squares, streets, and parks in the District of Columbia; the selection of models for statues, fountains, and monuments erected under the authority of the Federal Government; the selection of artists; and questions of art generally when required to do so by the President or a committee of Congress.\" This includes review of commemorative coins when they are presented by the U.S. Mint and the issuance of recommendations for a coin's design.\nFor example, in March 2014, the U.S. Mint presented several alternative designs for the First Special Service Force Congressional Gold Medal. In a letter to the U.S. Mint, the CFA provided recommendations on the design for the gold medal. CFA's letter stated the following:\n\n\t\tU.S. Mint\n\nAfter receiving advice from the CCAC and the CFA, the Secretary of the Treasury, through the U.S. Mint, finalizes the coin's design and schedules it for production. Figure 1 shows the final design of two Congressional Gold Medals: the New Frontier Gold Medal for Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins, Buzz Aldrin, and John Glenn; and the Jack Nicklaus Gold Medal.\n\n\tIssues for Congress\n\nAs Members of Congress contemplate introducing legislation, and the House or the Senate potentially consider Congressional Gold Medal measures, there are several issues that could be considered. These can be divided into issues for individual Members of Congress with respect to individual Congressional Gold Medals, and issues for Congress as an institution. Individual issues include choices Members may make about which people or groups might be honored and whether specific design elements might be specified statutorily. Institutional issues might include committee or chamber rules on the consideration of Congressional Gold Medals and creating standards for the issuance of gold medals.\n\n\t\tIndividual Considerations\n\n\t\t\tIndividuals and Groups Honored\n\nSome Congressional Gold Medals have honored individuals (e.g., Arnold Palmer, Muhammad Yunus), some discrete groups of individuals (e.g., General of the Army George Catlett Marshall and Fleet Admiral Ernest Joseph King, Ruth and Billy Graham), and some larger groups (e.g., military units such as Women Airforce Service Pilots [\"WASP\"], Monuments Men). In choosing whom or what to recognize, Members of Congress generally evaluate whether they believe that the individual's or group's activities merit recognition by Congress. Congressional Gold Medals are \"the highest civilian honor award program ... [to] honor national achievement in patriotic, humanitarian, and artistic endeavors.\" There are no specific criteria to determine whether or not an individual or group meets those lofty goals. Instead, each individual or group is judged on their merits by Congress should the legislation be considered.\n\n\t\t\tSpecification of Design Elements\n\nCongressional Gold Medal authorizations generally do not specify design elements. Instead, they direct the Secretary of the Treasury to \"strike a gold medal with suitable emblems, devices, and inscriptions to be determined by the Secretary.\" Should Congress want to specify particular design elements, they might be included in the authorizing legislation. This would provide the Secretary of the Treasury with congressional intent on what should be incorporated into the gold medal design. Similar statutory specificity is sometimes included in commemorative coin legislation. Such specification, however, could serve to limit design choices for the gold medal and might alter the cost structure of striking the award, if the required element diverges from standard practices.\n\n\t\t\tLocation of Medal Awarded to Groups\n\nCongressional Gold Medal legislation for groups generally provides that only a single gold medal is struck and specifies where it will be located after it is formally awarded. In many cases, the gold medal is given to the Smithsonian for appropriate display and where it can be made available for research. In other cases, the gold medal is provided to an organization that represents the honored group. Since most gold medal legislation contains a provision on the medal's location, a Member of Congress can help determine where the medal will be located.\n\n\t\tInstitutional Consideration\n\n\t\t\tRequirements for Legislative Considerations\n\nAs discussed above under \" Authorizing Congressional Gold Medals ,\" neither the House nor Senate rules provide any restrictions specifically concerning consideration of Congressional Gold Medal legislation on the House or Senate floor. In the 116 th Congress, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs requires that at least 67 Senators must cosponsor any Senate Congressional Gold Medal bill before being considered by the committee. Currently, the House Financial Services Committee has not adopted any specific rules concerning committee consideration of Congressional Gold Medal legislation, although it has required a minimum number of cosponsors in past Congresses for committee consideration. \nAs demonstrated by the discontinuation of the House Financial Services Committee rule requiring a minimum number of cosponsors for committee gold medal legislation, committee rules can be changed from Congress to Congress. Should the committee want to place requirements on its consideration of gold medal legislation, the Financial Services Committee could readopt its former rule, or something similar. Adopting committee rules to require a minimum number of cosponsors might encourage bill sponsors to build support among Representatives for gold medal bills. Such a minimum requirement, however, could potentially limit the number or type of gold medal bills the committee considers. Since only the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs has a rule that imposes a formal qualification on the potential committee consideration of gold medal legislation, the possible path forward for a bill can be different within each chamber. \nShould the House, the Senate, or both want to adopt similar language for committee or chamber consideration of gold medal legislation, such language could be incorporated into future committee rules, into House and Senate Rules, or into law. Taking steps to formally codify the gold medal consideration process might provide sponsors with a single process for award consideration, which could make it easier for gold medal bills to meet minimum requirements for consideration across both the House and Senate. Such codification could also limit congressional flexibility and might result in fewer proposals or authorizations to comply with new standards.\n\n\t\t\tStatutory Standards\n\nCurrently, there is no statutory limit to the number of Congressional Gold Medals that can be authorized. Should Congress want to place a limit on the number of gold medals awarded, standards could be adopted to provide a maximum number of gold medals authorized in any year or Congress. Congress has previously adopted similar standards for commemorative coins\u2014only two coins may be minted in any given calendar year. \nLegislation to place a limit on the number of gold medals authorized has previously been introduced and considered in the House. During the 109 th Congress (2005-2006), H.R. 54 passed the House and would have restricted the Secretary of the Treasury from striking \"more than 2 congressional gold medals for presentation ... in any calendar year.\" Introduced by Representative Michael Castle, the stated purpose of the legislation was to \"maintain the prestige of the medal by limiting the number that may be awarded each year,\" and to \"clarify that recipients are individuals and not groups.\" Passage of the measure, he argued, would \"ensure the future integrity and true honor of the award.\" H.R. 54 did not receive further consideration in the Senate.\nWhile proponents of a limit on the number of gold medals issued might make arguments similar to those made by Representative Castle, opponents believe that Congress should reserve the right to authorize as many gold medals as it deems necessary, without consideration of the number struck in any calendar year. Representative Joseph Crowley in opposing the legislation told his House colleagues, \"We are rushing to act on an issue that does not represent a problem.\" \"Who that received this medal in the past,\" he asked, \"was not worthy of it?\" Further, Crowley argued that \"there are occasions when more than one person is justified to receive the medal for their honorable actions in tandem with others.\" He continued by emphasizing that had this bill already been law, \"Congress would not have been able to issue\" a Congressional Gold Medal \"to the Little Rock Nine,\" to \"President and Mrs. Reagan,\" or to \"Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King.\"\n\n\tConcluding Observations\n\nCongressional Gold Medals have long been an important way for Congress to express public gratitude for important historical events and achievements. Congressional Gold Medals, which have been issued since the American Revolution, are \"the highest civilian honor award program ... [to] honor national achievement in patriotic, humanitarian, and artistic endeavors.\" In recent years, the number of gold medals awarded has \"soared from four or five per decade for most of its history to an average of almost twenty in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s.\"\nEach Congress, legislation to award Congressional Gold Medals is introduced. In the 113 th Congress (2013-2014), 52 bills were introduced, 34 in the House and 18 in the Senate, to award a gold medal. In the 114 th Congress (2015-2016), 52 bills were introduced, 38 in the House and 14 in the Senate. In the 115 th Congress (2017-2018), 55 bills were introduced, 33 in the House and 22 in the Senate.\nBased on the number of measures offered in both chambers, some Members of Congress clearly feel it is important to recognize individuals and groups for their patriotic, humanitarian, and artistic achievements. Several considerations appear important when Members decide to introduce gold medal legislation. These include who should be honored, how many medals should be awarded in a given Congress, and whether specific design elements should be prescribed for the medal design. As Congress continues to consider legislation to award future gold medals, these considerations and others will likely be important factors for issuing the award.\n\n\t\tAppendix. Summary of Congressional Gold Medals Awarded: 1776-2018", "source": "gov_report_summ", "evaluation": "rouge"}
{"instructions": ["Please help me summarize this government report."], "outputs": ["House rules govern the length of time legislative measures must be available to Members before being considered on the floor. For measures reported from committee, a draft of the committee report must have been available for 72 hours. Conference reports must also have been available for 72 hours and special rules for considering measures for one legislative day. Bills and joint resolutions that have not been reported by committee, and therefore are not accompanied by a written report, may also not be considered on the House floor unless the measure has been available for 72 hours. Proposed committee reports, unreported bills and joint resolutions, conference reports, and joint explanatory statements are considered available under these rules if they are publicly available in electronic form on a website designated by the Committee on House Administration for this purpose, http://docs.house.gov.\nThe House has several means by which it can choose to waive these availability requirements and call up, debate, and vote on a measure in a single calendar day even if the text of the measure was not made available prior to consideration. These include (1) considering a measure under the suspension of the rules procedure or by unanimous consent, (2) adopting a special rule that waives the 72-hour requirement, (3) adopting a special rule that waives the one-day requirement for another special rule, and (4) convening a second legislative day on the same calendar day. Waiving availability requirements allows the House to act quickly when necessary, such as near the end of a session."], "input": "\tAvailability Requirements in House Rules\n\nThe rules of the House of Representatives generally grant Members an opportunity to review legislative measures by governing the length of time the measures must be made available before being considered on the floor. Different House rules establish availability requirements for reported bills and resolutions, unreported bills and joint resolutions, conference committee reports, and special rules (resolutions reported by the Rules Committee intended to regulate floor consideration of a measure named in the resolution). \nUnder House rules, draft committee reports and unreported bills and joint resolutions are considered available under these rules if they are \"publicly available in electronic form at a location designated by the Committee on House Administration.\" Conference committee reports and accompanying joint explanatory statements are also considered available if they are in electronic form at such a location. It is not a requirement under the rule that the measures be available in the designated location. Instead, the House rule is meant to provide an additional means through which Members, congressional staff, and the general public can access these documents.\n\n\t\tReported Bills and Resolutions (Rule XIII, Clause 4(a))\n\nMeasures and other matters reported by committees may not be considered on the House floor until a draft of the committee report on the matter has been available for at least 72 hours. Specifically, the \"proposed text\" of the committee report\u2014except for any supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views\u2014must be made available. Under House Rule XI, clause 2(l), committee members are guaranteed two calendar days to submit supplemental or other views for inclusion in a committee report\u2014if notice of intent to file supplement views was given at the markup. However, the committee majority, before receiving such views, can make a draft of the committee report available and start the 72-hour clock. \nThe House rule exempts several kinds of measures specified in the rule, including resolutions reported by the Rules Committee. \n\n\t\tUnreported Bills and Joint Resolutions (Rule XXI, Clause 11)\n\nBills and joint resolutions that have not been reported by committee, and therefore are not accompanied by a written report, may also not be considered on the House floor unless the measure has been available for at least 72 hours. If a measure has not been reported by a committee, it is generally not eligible for floor consideration unless it is called up under a procedure that waives the requirement that it be reported. Such procedures are discussed below in the section on waiving the availability requirements.\n\n\t\tConference Reports (Rule XXII, Clause 8(a))\n\nThe House rule requires that before a conference report can be considered, its text and its accompanying joint explanatory statement must be available in the Congressional Record for 72 hours. Alternatively, the conference report can be considered if it has been made publicly available in electronic form at a location designated by the Committee on House Administration (currently http://docs.house.gov/ ) . In addition, copies of a conference report and the joint explanatory statement must be available for at least two hours prior to its consideration. \nAccording to the rule, this 72-hour availability requirement does not apply during the last six days of a session. In contemporary practice, however, it is difficult to implement this exception to the rule. Adjournment resolutions are usually not approved until very shortly before the adjournment takes place. This practice usually makes it impossible to know when the \"last six days\" of a session begin. Absent a resolution setting a future date for adjournment, the 72-hour rule applies even as the House nears the end of a session. The 72-hour availability requirement for conference reports would cease to apply only in the last six calendar days before the constitutional end of a session on January 3. Near the end of a session, however, the House sometimes agrees to special rules reported by the Rules Committee that waive the availability requirement. This is discussed below in the section on waiving availability requirements.\n\n\t\tSpecial Rules (Rule XIII, Clause 6(a))\n\nThe House frequently operates under special rules, or resolutions reported from the Rules Committee, which can waive any or all of the above rules . Special rules are required to lie over for one legislative day, which means the special rule cannot be reported and considered on the same legislative day. A legislative day is not necessarily a calendar day. A legislative day begins the first time the House meets after an adjournment and ends when the House adjourns again. Because the House typically adjourns at the end of a calendar day, legislative and calendar days usually coincide.\nRule XIII also provides several exceptions to the layover requirement for special rules. First, a special rule may be considered the same day it is presented if it proposes only to waive the rules mandating that committee reports and conference reports be available for 72 hours. If the rule also sets the terms for the consideration of the matter, perhaps by waiving points of order, then the rule is required to lie over for one legislative day.\nSecond, a special rule may be considered the same day it is presented to the House in the last three days of a session. In modern practice, as mentioned above, the House rarely agrees to an adjournment date far in advance, usually making it impossible to know when \"the last three days\" begin.\nThird, the one-day layover requirement for special rules can be waived if two-thirds of the Members voting agree to the waiver (a quorum being present). In addition, as discussed below, the Rules Committee may report a special rule that waives the one-day layover requirement for subsequent special rules.\n\n\tWaiving the Availability Requirements in the Rules\n\nThe House has several means for waiving its rules when it wishes to act expeditiously. For example, the House may set aside any of its availability requirements by unanimous consent. It may also call up and agree to a bill or conference report that has not met the availability requirements by a two-thirds vote to suspend the rules. As previously mentioned, according to Rule XIII, clause 6(a)(1), the one-day layover requirement for a special rule can be waived by two-thirds of the Members voting.\nThe House can also waive the availability requirements by a simple majority. If a majority of the House desires to do so, the House can vote on a measure the same calendar day that the text was made available to Members. The House usually does this by agreeing to two special rules, as explained below. It may also achieve the same result by convening for two legislative days on the same calendar day in the manner also described below.\n\n\t\tWaiving Availability Requirements by Special Rule\n\nThe Rules Committee may report a special rule that waives the 72-hour availability requirement for bills, resolutions, or conference reports. A rule only waiving the availability requirement can be presented and called up on the same day. Special rules, however, often set the terms for considering a measure as well. A special rule for the consideration of a measure might waive the 72-hour availability requirement but also structure the amending process. Such a rule would be required to lie over for one legislative day (unless this requirement was waived by a two-thirds vote). Similarly, a rule for the consideration of a conference report often waives points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. Under current House rules, that special rule is also required to lie over for one legislative day unless the requirement is waived by a two-thirds vote. In short, special rules only waiving the 72-hour availability requirement are not required to lie over for one legislative day.\nTo waive the one-day layover requirement of Rule XIII, clause 6(a), for a special rule, the Rules Committee may report a special rule that waives this requirement. The rule providing this waiver is subject to the same one-day layover requirement. If such a special rule is adopted, the House can then consider and adopt a special rule providing for the consideration of a measure later on the same legislative day. The special rule for the consideration of the measure can waive the 72-hour availability requirement for the measure. In this way, the House of Representatives, by majority vote, has the potential to call up, debate, and pass a measure in a single day even if the measure has not been made available prior to consideration. In order to achieve this result, however, the Rules Committee must have reported the additional special rule on the previous legislative day.\nIn summary, a simple majority of the House can call up, debate, and vote on a measure in a single calendar day, regardless of how long the text has been available, by taking the following steps:\nFirst, the House agrees to a special rule waiving the one-day layover requirement for any special rule for the consideration of a specified matter. (This rule is required to lie over for one legislative day.) Second, the House agrees to a separate special rule setting the terms of consideration of the measure and waiving any availability requirements for the measure itself. (This rule need not lie over for one legislative day. The first special rule waived the one-day layover requirement for this special rule.) Third, the House calls up, debates, and votes on the measure.\n\n\t\tCreating or Extending a Legislative Day\n\nAlthough the House rarely chooses to do so, it could agree to call up and consider a measure in a single calendar day by convening two legislative days in a single calendar day. It would do this by agreeing to a motion to adjourn for a brief period at some point during its session. Agreement to this motion would terminate the legislative day, and when the House returned from its brief adjournment pursuant to this motion, a new legislative day would begin.\nIf the Rules Committee presents a special rule before the House adjourns, the rule can be considered on the next legislative day regardless of how much time has elapsed. In other words, if a special rule were reported, and the House adjourned and then shortly thereafter reconvened, the special rule would have been available for one legislative day, meeting the layover requirement of the standing rule. The House could then consider the special rule that, among other things, could waive the 72-hour availability requirement for a resolution, bill, or conference report.\nFrom time to time, the House has also been known to recess after legislative business, but not adjourn, in order to give the Rules Committee time to complete and report a special rule. The rule could be reported very late or even early in the morning of the next calendar day. Regardless of whether or not it is the next calendar day when the rule is reported, if the House adjourns after it is reported, when it reconvenes it will be a new legislative day, and the layover requirement will be considered met.\n\n\t\tSpecial Rules Near the End of a Session\n\nIn the contemporary House, it is not uncommon for the Rules Committee to report several special rules at the end of a session that waive the availability requirements for subsequent special rules for the consideration of certain specified measures. In the past, the House has also agreed to resolutions reported by the Rules Committee near the end of a session that waived availability requirements in general.\nSpecial rules that waive availability requirements are sometimes referred to as \"same day rules.\" They are also sometimes referred to, particularly by their opponents, as \"martial law\" rules. The term has been used by Members of the House for at least 15 years, but it has not been applied consistently to any one type of special rule. It has been used, for example, to describe both special rules that waive the one-day layover requirement for subsequent special rules and to describe broad special rules that trigger some provisions of House rules and waive others for the remaining duration of a session.\nSupporters of end-of-session resolutions that waive availability requirements sometimes argue that these special rules are meant to achieve the same end as the standing rules that make certain provisions of House rules inapplicable during the final days of the session. As mentioned above, the 72-hour availability requirement for conference reports does not apply in the last six days of a session. The one-day layover requirement for special rules does not apply in the last three days of a session. In recent years, Congress has not agreed to a concurrent resolution setting an adjournment date until just before adjournment takes place. As a result, these standing rules are not triggered in the contemporary House. By agreeing to a same-day rule near the end of the session, the House can achieve the same end as the existing, but technically inapplicable, standing rules that waive availability requirements at the end of a session. Opponents of these end-of-session resolutions sometimes argue that all Representatives should be guaranteed some time to examine legislative proposals regardless of when they are presented during the course of a session.", "source": "gov_report_summ", "evaluation": "rouge"}
{"instructions": ["Please help me summarize this government report."], "outputs": ["Although states have a great deal of autonomy in how they establish and run their unemployment insurance programs, federal law requires states to pay Unemployment Compensation (UC) benefits promptly as provided under state law. During some recessions, current taxes and reserve balances may be insufficient to cover state obligations for UC benefits. States may borrow funds from the federal loan account within the Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF) to meet UC benefit obligations.\nThis report summarizes how insolvent states may borrow funds from the UTF loan account to meet their UC benefit obligations. It includes the manner in which states must repay federal UTF loans. It also provides details on how the UTF loans may trigger potential interest accrual and explains the timetable for increased net Federal Unemployment Taxes Act (FUTA) taxes if the funds are not repaid promptly.\nOutstanding loans listed by state may be found at the Department of Labor's (DOL's) website, https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/budget.asp."], "input": "\tUnemployment Compensation, Unemployment Taxes, and a State's Obligation to Pay Benefits\n\nUnemployment Compensation (UC) is a joint federal-state program financed by federal payroll taxes under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) and by state payroll taxes under State Unemployment Tax Acts (SUTA). These revenues are deposited into the appropriate account within the federal Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF).\nOriginally, the intent of the UC program, among other goals, was to help counter economic fluctuations such as recessions. This intent is reflected in the current UC program's funding and benefit structure. When the economy grows, UC program revenue rises through increased tax revenues. At the same time, UC program spending falls because fewer workers are unemployed. The effect of collecting more taxes while decreasing spending on benefits dampens demand in the economy. It also creates a surplus of funds, or a reserve fund , for the UC program to draw upon during a recession. These reserve balances are credited in the state's account within the UTF. During an economic slowdown or recession, UC tax revenue falls and UC program spending rises as more workers lose their jobs and receive UC benefits. The increased amount of UC payments to unemployed workers dampens the economic effect of lost earnings by injecting additional funds into the economy.\n\n\t\tState and Federal Unemployment Taxes\n\n\t\t\tState Unemployment Taxes\n\nStates levy their own payroll taxes (SUTA) on employers to fund regular UC benefits and the state share (50%) of the Extended Benefit (EB) program. Federal laws and regulations provide broad guidelines for these state taxes. Each state deposits its SUTA revenue into its account within the UTF.\nSUTA revenue finances UC benefits. Generally, when economic activity is robust and increasing, SUTA revenue is greater than a state's UC expenditures. As a result, the state's reserves within the UTF grow. This trend is reversed during economic recessions and during the early economic recovery period, when the state's reserves are drawn down and new SUTA revenue does not always make up the shortfall.\nIf the recession is deep enough and if SUTA revenue is inadequate for long periods of time, states may have insufficient funds to pay for UC benefits. Federal law, which requires states to pay these benefits, provides a loan mechanism within the UTF framework that an insolvent state may opt to use to meet its UC benefit payment obligations. States must pay back these loans. If the loans are not paid back quickly (depending on the timing of the beginning of the loan period), states may face interest charges and the states' employers may face increased net FUTA rates until the loans are repaid.\nIn the years immediately following the most recent recession, many states had insufficient SUTA revenue and UTF account balances to pay UC benefits. \n\n\t\t\tFederal Unemployment Taxes\n\nAll FUTA revenue is deposited into the Employment Security Administration Account (ESAA) within the UTF. Federal unemployment taxes pay for the federal share of EB (50%) and for administrative grants to the states. Additionally, through the federal loan account within the UTF, FUTA funds may be loaned to insolvent states to assist the payment of the states' UC obligations.\n\n\t\t\t\tNet FUTA Rate Is 0.6%\n\nFUTA imposes a 6.0% gross federal unemployment tax rate on the first $7,000 paid annually by employers to each employee. Employers in states with programs approved by the U.S. Labor Secretary and with no outstanding federal loans may credit up to 5.4 percentage points of state unemployment taxes paid against the 6.0% tax rate, making the minimum net federal unemployment tax rate 0.6%.\nBecause most employees earn more than the $7,000 taxable wage ceiling in a calendar year, the FUTA tax typically is $42 per worker per year ($7,000 \u00d7 0.6%), or just over 2 cents per hour for a full-time, year-round worker.\n\n\t\tStates Required to Pay UC Benefits\n\nStates have a great deal of autonomy in how they establish and run their unemployment insurance programs. However, the framework established by federal laws is clear and requires states to promptly pay the UC benefits as provided under state law.\nIn budgetary terms, UC benefits are an entitlement (although the program is financed by a dedicated tax imposed on employers and not by general revenue). Thus, even if a recession hits a given state and, as a result, that state's trust fund account is depleted, the state remains legally required to continue paying benefits. To do so, the state might borrow money either from the dedicated loan account within the UTF or from outside sources.\nIf the state chooses to borrow funds from the UTF, not only will the state be required to continue paying benefits, it also will be required to repay the funds (plus any interest due) it has borrowed from the federal loan account within a few years. Such states may need to raise taxes on their employers or reduce UC benefit levels, actions that dampen economic growth, job creation, and consumer demand. In short, states have strong incentives to keep adequate funds in their trust fund accounts.\nIf the state borrows from sources outside the UTF, the state would not be subject to the loan restrictions described below. Instead, the state would be subject to the terms within that outside loan agreement, which might offer a different (more favorable) interest rate or repayment schedule but may include fees to establish the loan.\n\n\tFunds Available for Loans to States Within the UTF\n\nThe Federal Unemployment Account (FUA) is the federal loan account within the UTF. The FUA is primarily funded from the statutory transfer of excess revenue from the Extended Unemployment Compensation Account (EUCA) being deposited into the FUA. \nIf needed, the FUA may borrow funds from other federal accounts within the UTF or from the general fund of the U.S. Treasury. From FY2009 to FY2015, the FUA had to borrow funds from the U.S. Treasury to finance loans to the state accounts.\n1. Revenue from additional FUTA taxes paid by employers when a reduced credit against federal unemployment taxes exists because the state has an outstanding unpaid loan from FUA is deposited into the FUA. (See the discussion below on \" Federal Tax Increases on Outstanding Loans Through Credit\u00a0Reductions \" for a more detailed explanation of these additional taxes.) 2. Federal law allows the FUA to borrow available funds from the other federal (EUCA and ESAA) accounts within the UTF. 3. Federal law also authorizes appropriations as loans from the general fund of the U.S. Treasury if balances in the federal accounts are insufficient to cover their expenditures. (For example, if the states' borrowing needs exceed the available FUA balance.) Such appropriations require discretionary action by Congress and the President.\n\n\tMechanism for Receiving a Loan from the UTF\n\nOnce a state recognizes that it does not have sufficient funds to pay UC benefits, the mechanism for receiving a loan from the UTF is straightforward. The state's governor (or the governor's designee) must submit a letter requesting that the U.S. Labor Secretary advance funds to the state account within the UTF. Once the loan is approved by the U.S. Labor Secretary, the funds are placed into the state account in monthly increments.\n\n\tLoan Repayment\n\nStates with outstanding loans from the UTF must repay them fully by the November 10 following the second consecutive January 1 on which the state has an outstanding loan. If the outstanding loan is not repaid by that time, the state will face an effective federal tax increase. Thus, a state may have approximately 22 months (if borrowing began on January 1) to 34 months (if borrowing began on January 2) to repay the loan without a federal tax increase, depending on when it obtained the outstanding loan. \nAs of January 29, 2019, approximately $68.3 million in federal UTF loans to the states were outstanding. A current list of states with outstanding loans may be found at the Department of Labor's (DOL's) website, https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/budget.asp .\n\n\t\tFederal Tax Increases on Outstanding Loans Through Credit Reductions\n\nIf the state does not repay a loan by November 10 of the second year, the state becomes subject to a reduction in the amount of state unemployment tax credit applied against the federal unemployment tax beginning with the preceding January 1 until the state repays the loan fully. Depending on the duration of the loan and certain other measures, one or more of three different credit reductions may be required. These reductions are fully catalogued in Table 1 . At the height of the period following the most recent recession (2011), 20 states and the Virgin Islands faced increased FUTA rates because of outstanding UTF loans. \n\n\t\t\tBasic Credit Reduction\n\nThe credit reduction is initially a 0.3 percentage point reduction for the year beginning with the calendar year in which the second consecutive January 1 passes during which the loan is outstanding and increases by a 0.3 percentage point reduction for each year there is an outstanding loan. For example, in the first year, the credit reduction results in the net federal tax rate increasing from 0.6% to 0.9%\u2014an additional $21 for each employee; in the second year, it would increase to 1.2%\u2014a cumulative additional $42 for each employee.\n\n\t\t\tAdditional Credit Reductions: 2.7 Add-on and Benefit-Cost Ratio Add-on\n\nTwo potential other credit reductions exist (in addition to the cumulative 0.3 percentage point increases) during the ensuing calendar years in which a state has an outstanding loan: \n1. Beginning in the third year, the 2.7 add-on uses a statutory formula that takes into consideration the average annual wages and average employment contribution rate. 2. Beginning in the fifth year, the Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) add-on replaces the 2.7 add-on and uses the five-year benefit-cost rate as well as average wages in its calculation. \n Table 1 presents these reductions and the subsequent net FUTA tax faced by state employers as a result of these unpaid loans. If any January 1 passes without an outstanding balance, the year count starts over with the next loan. DOL maintains a list of potential reduced credit states at http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/docs/reduced_credit_states.xlsx . \n\n\t\t\tAvoiding Some or All of the Credit Reduction\n\nSection 272 of P.L. 97-248 allows a delinquent state the option of repaying\u2014on or before November 9\u2014a portion of its outstanding loans each year through transfer of a specified amount from its account in the UTF to the FUA.\nIf the state complies with all the requirements listed below, the potential credit reduction is avoided (there is no reduction):\nThe state must repay all loans for the most recent one-year period ending on November 9, plus the potential additional taxes that would have been imposed for the tax year based upon a state tax credit reduction. The state must have sufficient amounts in the state account of the UTF to pay all compensation for the last quarter of that calendar year without receiving a loan. The state also must have altered its state law to increase the net solvency of its account with the UTF.\nFrom 2011 through 2014, South Carolina met these requirements. As a result, employers in South Carolina were not subject to a state tax credit reduction in the calculation of their FUTA taxes. (Generally, employers in South Carolina would have paid more in state unemployment taxes to meet these requirements.)\n\n\t\t\t\tAvoiding Credit Reduction: Cap\n\nOnce a state begins to have a credit reduction, the state may apply to have the reductions capped if the state meets four criteria:\nNo legislative or other action in 12 months ending September 30 has been taken to decrease the state's unemployment tax effort. (A state cannot actively decrease its expected state unemployment tax revenue from current law.) No legislative or other action has been taken to decrease the net solvency of the state's trust fund account. (For example, the state would not be allowed to actively increase the average UC benefit amount from current law requirements.) Average state unemployment tax rate on total wages must exceed the five-year average benefit-cost rate on total wages. Balance of outstanding loans as of September 30 must not be greater than the balance three years before.\n\n\t\t\t\tWaiving the BCR Add-on\n\nThe BCR add-on may be waived if the Secretary of Labor determines the state did not take legislative or other actions to decrease the net solvency of the state's trust fund account. The 2.7 add-on would then replace the BCR add-on.\n\n\t\t\tRevenue from Credit Reductions Reduces State UTF Loans\n\nThe additional federal taxes attributable to the credit reduction are applied against the state's outstanding UTF loan. Thus, although technically employers are paying additional FUTA taxes, the additional tax pays off a state's debt. The state's employers will pay the additional federal taxes resulting from the credit reduction no later than January 31 of the next calendar year.\n\n\tInterest Charges on Loans\n\nSince April 1, 1982 ( P.L. 97-35 as amended), states have been charged interest on new loans that are not repaid by the end of the fiscal year in which they were obtained. (Before April 1, 1982, states could receive these loans interest free.) \nThe interest is the same rate as that paid by the federal government on state reserves in the UTF for the quarter ending December 31 of the preceding year but not higher than 10% per annum. The interest rate for calendar year loans is determined by Section 1202(b)(4) of the Social Security Act. The interest rate for a calendar year is the earnings yield on the UTF for the quarter ending December 31 of the previous calendar year. The U.S. Treasury Department calculated the fourth-quarter earnings yield in 2018 to be 2.3081%. Thus, loans made in calendar year 2019 are subject to an interest rate of 2.3081%.\nStates may not pay the interest directly or indirectly from SUTA revenue or funds in their state account within the UTF. If a state does not repay the interest, or if it pays the interest with funds from SUTA taxes, DOL is required by federal law to refuse to certify that state's program as being in compliance with federal law. Not being in compliance with federal unemployment law would mean that the state would not be eligible to receive administrative grants and employers in that state would not receive the state unemployment tax credit in the calculation of their federal unemployment taxes. \nStates may borrow funds without interest from the UTF during the year. To receive these interest-free loans, the states must meet five conditions:\n1. The states must repay the loans by September 30.\n2. For those repaid (by September 30) loans to maintain their interest-free status, there cannot be any loans made to that state in October, November, or December of the calendar year of such an interest-free loan. If loans are made in the last quarter of the calendar year, the \"interest-free\" loans made in the previous fiscal year will retroactively accrue interest charges.\n3. The states must meet funding goals relating to their account in the UTF, established under regulations issued by DOL.\nIn addition to these first three requirements, the phase-in of two new requirements began in 2014. The full effect of the requirements began in 2019. \n4. States must have had at least one year in the past five calendar years before the year in which advances are taken in which the Average High Cost Multiple (AHCM) was greater than or equal to 1.0. \n5. Additionally, states must meet two criteria for maintenance-of-tax effort in every year from the most recent year the AHCM was at least 1.0 and the year in which loans are taken.\na. The average state unemployment tax rate (total state unemployment tax amount collected over total taxable wages) was at least 80% of the prior year's rate. \nb. The average state unemployment tax rate was at least 75% of the average benefit-cost ratio over the preceding five calendar years, where the benefit-cost ratio for a year is defined as the amount of benefits and interest paid in the year divided by the total covered wages paid in the year.\n\n\tStatus of Outstanding Loans, Accrued Interest Owed, and State Tax Credit Reductions\n\n Table 2 lists outstanding state loans. (At this time, only the U.S. Virgin Islands has an outstanding loan.) The table also includes information on accrued interest payments for FY2019. The third column provides information on whether the state was subject to a credit reduction for tax year 2018. The last column provides the net FUTA tax faced by employers in each state that had an outstanding loan.", "source": "gov_report_summ", "evaluation": "rouge"}
{"instructions": ["Please help me summarize this government report."], "outputs": ["Since the 1950s and the creation of the first federal student aid programs, one aim of federal higher education policy has been to promote access to postsecondary education, particularly for students with financial need. In recent years, the federal government has annually made available more than $100 billion in federal grants, loans, and work-study funds to millions of students to help cover the cost of higher education. As Congress continues to focus on expanding access to postsecondary education through federal student aid policies, understanding various characteristics of the population enrolling in postsecondary education may be useful for policy deliberations.\nThis report focuses on the income of the undergraduate student population. It analyzes (1) how the income distribution of the undergraduate population has changed over time; (2) the relationship between student income and certain student demographics, such as race and dependency status; and (3) how the income distribution of the undergraduate population compares with that of the population of persons who do not have a postsecondary degree. Major findings presented in this report include the following:\nThe number and proportion of low-income students has increased in more recent years, even as total enrollment has decreased. Low-income student enrollment has increased at a faster pace than the nation's population of low-income persons. The majority of students enrolling in postsecondary education have incomes below 200% of the poverty guidelines. Independent undergraduate students who have sometimes been labeled as \"non-traditional\" constitute a large portion of enrolled postsecondary students and tend to have lower income than more \"traditional\" students. Nonwhite students account for nearly 50% of the undergraduate student population, and they tend to have lower income than white students. The majority of low-income students attend community colleges and a disproportionately high share attend private for-profit institutions.\nThe changing composition of the student population could have implications for federal policies designed to promote access to postsecondary education. In particular, policymakers face consideration of whether federal policies could play a role in encouraging students at various income levels to enroll at the highest performing types of schools. Policymakers also face consideration of the extent to which Higher Education Act programs are designed to support the success of non-traditional and minority students."], "input": "\tIntroduction\n\nSince the 1950s and the creation of the first federal student aid programs, one aim of federal higher education policy has been to promote access to postsecondary education, particularly for students with financial need. In recent years, the federal government has annually made available more than $100 billion in federal grants, loans, and work-study funds to millions of students to help cover the cost of higher education. As Congress continues to focus on expanding access to postsecondary education through federal student aid policies, understanding various characteristics of the population enrolling in postsecondary education may be helpful in informing policy deliberations.\nIn academic year (AY) 2015-2016, there were approximately 19.3 million students enrolled as undergraduates in postsecondary education in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. In AY2007-2008, around the time of the last reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA), there were approximately 20.5 million undergraduate students enrolled in postsecondary education. The composition of the current undergraduate population, how the composition has changed over time, and the types of institutions in which students enroll are issues that are likely to be of interest to Congress as it considers the reauthorization of the HEA. \nThis report focuses on the income of the undergraduate student population. The report will explore the relationship between student income and certain student demographics such as race and dependency status, and explore how the income distribution of the undergraduate population compares with that of the national population of persons who do not have a postsecondary degree. \n\n\tData Sources\n\nThe analysis presented in this report relies on two data sources: the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) and the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC). This section describes each data source, along with some of the limitations of the data. \n\n\t\tNPSAS\n\nThe data used in this report were primarily derived from NPSAS. NPSAS is a nationally representative study of students enrolled in postsecondary education that focuses on how students finance their education. NPSAS is conducted by the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and is administered every four years. The most recent study available covers AY2015-2016, which ran from July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2016. To provide an illustration of how postsecondary student characteristics have changed over time, this report uses data from the last six administrations of NPSAS that are available\u2014AY1995-1996, AY1999-2000, AY2003-2004, AY2007-2008, AY2011-2012, and AY2015-2016\u2014covering a period of 20 years.\nThe NPSAS data are used in this report to explore the income characteristics of the postsecondary population and the extent to which income is related to other student demographics, such as race and dependency status. The report also explores the relationship between income and type of institution(s) attended. To establish a student's income, the NPSAS variable for income as a percentage of the poverty guidelines is used. The poverty guidelines are based on family size and total income (more discussion on the poverty guidelines is provided in the subsequent section of this report). One advantage of using the poverty guidelines is that they provide income relative to the level of poverty at a certain point in time. Therefore, when looking at trends in income over time, no adjustments need be made for inflation. \nThe individual(s) (i.e., a student, student's parents, or student's spouse) whose income is represented by the income as a percentage of the poverty level varies by the student's dependency status. For dependent students, the measure reflects the family size and income of the student's parents; for independent students, it reflects the family size and income of the student and, if applicable, the student's spouse. For simplicity, when this report refers to a student's income in the context of the NPSAS data, it is referring to the income of applicable family members.\nThere are several studies that have explored the income characteristics of the postsecondary population. For example, NCES publishes an annual report on the income characteristics of students who enroll in college immediately after completing high school. Data from the most recent report suggest that for the past few years, low-income students have started to enroll in postsecondary education at a higher rate than middle-income students, but they also continue to enroll at a much lower rate than high-income students. However, in looking only at recent high school completers, the data exclude a large portion of the postsecondary population who are not recent high school graduates. Thus, one advantage of using NPSAS is that the data provide a representative sample of all types of students across all types of Title IV schools. \nOne limitation of using NPSAS is that while much of the data are derived from information that students report on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), the remaining data, for students who did not apply for aid, are collected through interview and/or are produced through stochastic imputation. As such, the data for non-FAFSA filers are likely considerably less precise than the data for FAFSA filers. For context, in the AY2015-2016 NPSAS study 70% of student respondents completed the FAFSA. \n\n\t\tCPS ASEC\n\nThe CPS ASEC is sponsored jointly by the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and is the official source of annual estimates of poverty in the United States. The CPS is a monthly labor force survey that is used to compute monthly labor statistics, such as the unemployment rate. The ASEC, a supplementary set of questions asked after the basic CPS monthly questionnaire, is administered to about 100,000 addresses and asks the respondent to report information for the previous full calendar year. As a result, the income data obtained from the ASEC are annual measures. Respondents are asked about 18 types of income by a professional interviewer using a computerized questionnaire. The level of income detail is generally considered to be higher and more accurate than it is from surveys that rely on paper forms and are filled out by the respondents themselves. However, like all surveys based on a sample, the ASEC is subject to both sampling error and nonsampling error. Despite these limitations, the CPS ASEC is a widely used survey for analyzing household income. \nThe CPS ASEC data are used in this report to explore the income of the national population relative to the postsecondary population. For consistency with the three most recent NPSAS studies, this report uses the CPS ASEC data from 2007, 2011, and 2015. To draw valid comparisons between the national and the postsecondary population groups, CRS created an income variable in CPS ASEC that closely resembles the NPSAS variable for income as a percentage of the poverty guidelines. However, CPS ASEC uses household and family definitions that are different from NPSAS. To create units of analysis that were most similar to those in NPSAS, it was necessary to make some assumptions and intermediate calculations. Further, the definitions of income in CPS ASEC and NPSAS are not identical. Despite the limitations of CRS's approach, the derived family income variable allowed for some valuable comparisons. An outline of CRS's approach to creating the family income variable in CPS ASEC and the assumptions embedded in this approach is provided in the Appendix . \n\n\tIncome of Undergraduate Students\n\nThe amount of federal student aid that is made available to a student is largely determined by the student's income. Individuals who are interested in applying for federal student financial aid are required to complete the FAFSA. Information reported on the FAFSA is shared with state agencies and institutions of higher education to help determine federal and nonfederal student aid. Thus, an important characteristic of postsecondary students with regard to federal policy is their income. This section of the report explores changes in the income distribution of students enrolled in postsecondary education over time using the NPSAS variable for income as a percentage of the poverty guidelines. \nThe poverty guidelines are issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) every year, and many social programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Children's Health Insurance Program, the National School Lunch Program, and certain parts of Medicaid use poverty guidelines to determine participant eligibility for benefits. The poverty guidelines are also used to determine monthly payment amounts under the student loan income-driven repayment plans and in student loan rehabilitation agreements. Table 1 provides the 2014 HHS poverty guidelines and multiples that were used in NPSAS: 2016. Using these guidelines, CRS created the following five poverty bands for its analysis: below 100%, 100% to 199.99%, 200% to 299.99%, 300% to 499.99%, and 500% and above. For purposes of this report, \"low-income students\" are considered to have income that falls within the first two poverty bands (below 200% of the poverty guidelines). This characterization of low-income status is consistent with standards used in some education and social service programs that use the poverty guidelines to determine eligibility for assistance. It is used here primarily as a descriptor of lower-income categories in the populations being examined, and no suggestion is being made with regard to whether the first two poverty bands should be used as thresholds in \"low-income\" determinations for the receipt of means tested assistance.\nAs previously mentioned, one advantage of using the poverty guidelines is that they are indexed for inflation, which is useful when looking at trends in income over time. Another advantage is that they account for families of different sizes. For example, 200% of the poverty threshold for a family of four is $47,700. This same income level represents more than 300% of the poverty threshold for a single individual and for a family of two. \n\n\t\tUndergraduate Student Income Distribution\n\n Table 2 provides the number of undergraduate students enrolled by poverty bands during the period covered by the last six administrations of NPSAS that are available. Figure 1 provides a graphical illustration of the data presented in Table 2 . \nPostsecondary student enrollment has generally increased over the past two decades. In AY1995-1996 and AY1999-2000, there were about 16.3 million undergraduates. Enrollment increased to 18.9 million in AY2003-2004 and to 20.5 million in AY2007-2008, and reached a peak of 23.0 million in AY2011-2012. In AY2015-2016, enrollment dropped to 19.3 million undergraduates. \nThere were also changes in the income composition of the undergraduate population that appear to coincide with the 2008 recession. Specifically, the number of students with income below 100% of the poverty guidelines grew from approximately 4 million in AY2007-2008 to 6.7 million in AY2011-2012, an increase of nearly 70%. Students with income below 100% of the poverty guidelines also constituted a larger portion of the undergraduate population (29%) in AY2011-2012 than in any prior study. While overall enrollment decreased in AY2015-2016, the proportion of students in the lowest poverty band increased to 31% of the undergraduate population. More than 50% of undergraduate students enrolled in AY2011-2012 and AY2015-2016 had incomes below 200% of the poverty guideline.\nThe trend in enrollment of students in the upper and middle income categories differs from that of low-income students. From AY2007-2008 to AY2011-2012, the number of students in the upper poverty band (500% of the poverty guidelines and above) dropped by 17% while overall enrollment increased by 12%. In AY2015-2016, enrollment of upper-income students was 25% below the AY2007-2008 level. Similarly, enrollment of students with income between 200% and 499% of the poverty guidelines dropped by 25% between AY2007-2008 and AY2015-2016. \nOverall, the data suggest that low-income students are enrolling at higher levels than previously observed. Several conclusions could be drawn from this. For instance, it could suggest that institutions of higher education have become more effective at enrolling low-income students. It could also suggest a lack of opportunities in the labor market and that more low-income students are becoming convinced that they may realize economic benefits with higher educational credentials. \nAt the same time, enrollment of students in the middle and upper income categories has declined. It is possible that the trend in the income composition of undergraduate students could be a reflection of changes in income of the national population. As is explored in more depth in a later section of this report, these changes in the composition of the student population in the higher and lower poverty bands do not seem to map closely with broader income trends in the general population, although there is some alignment with income trends for those of ages similar to traditional college students during this period.\n\n\tStudent Demographics by Income\n\nThe data presented thus far suggest differences in the trends in enrollment of undergraduate students from different income groups. To further explore the current population of students, CRS examined certain demographic characteristics of the undergraduate student population and how those characteristics are related to income using the most recent NPSAS. \n\n\t\tRace\n\n Figure 2 illustrates the racial composition of students by poverty bands in AY2015-2016. The data suggest that minority students accounted for nearly 50% of the enrolled undergraduate population, and these students tended to have lower incomes than white students. More specifically, white students constituted about 53% of all enrolled undergraduate students, Hispanic students constituted 19%, black students constituted 16%, and Asian students and students from other racial groups constituted 12%.While white students made up the majority of students in any income category, they were overrepresented in the higher income bands. For example, white students constituted 73% of students with income of 500% and above of the poverty guidelines. Black and Hispanic students, on the other hand, were overrepresented in the lower income bands. For example, while black and Hispanic students combined accounted for 35% of the total undergraduate population, they accounted for 45% of students with income below 100% of the poverty guideline. The proportionate share of Asian and other students was relatively stable across the different poverty bands.\nAs Figure 1 illustrates, the majority of the undergraduate population has income below 200% of the poverty guidelines. Using counts presented in Figure 2 , it is possible to examine the concentration of these low-income students within racial groups in AY2015-2016. This reveals that 70% of black students, 64% of Hispanic students, 58% of \"other\" students, 55% of Asian students, and 42% of white students had income below 200% of the poverty guidelines. \n\n\t\tTraditional vs. Non-traditional Students\n\nWhen considering the postsecondary population, there is typically a distinction made between traditional and non-traditional students. While there is no consensus on the characteristics that distinguish traditional from non-traditional students at the undergraduate level, students identified as \"independent\" are often considered to be non-traditional students. An independent student is defined in the HEA as one who meets any of the following criteria:\nis 24 years of age or older by December 31 of the award year; is an orphan, in foster care, or a ward of the court; or was an orphan, in foster care, or a ward of the court at any time when the individual was 13 years of age or older; is, or was immediately prior to attaining the age of majority, an emancipated minor or in legal guardianship as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction in the individual's state of legal residence; is a veteran of the Armed Forces of the United States or is currently serving on active duty in the Armed Forces for other than training purposes; is a graduate or professional student; is a married individual; has legal dependents other than a spouse; or has been verified, by a qualified authority during the school year in which the application is submitted, as either an unaccompanied youth who is a homeless child or youth, or as unaccompanied, at risk of homelessness, and self-supporting.\nUnder the HEA, a student who does not meet the criteria for an independent student is treated as a dependent student. Figure 3 illustrates dependency status of enrolled undergraduate students by poverty bands in AY2015-2016 and suggests that independent students constituted a large portion of this population. These \"non-traditional students\" also tended to be low income. More specifically, while independent students constituted 50% of the undergraduate population, they constituted nearly 70% of students in the lowest poverty band. Dependent students, on the other hand, were largely overrepresented in the upper income bands. For example, dependent students constituted 76% of students with income of 500% and above of the poverty guidelines and 33% of students with income below 100% of the poverty guidelines.\nThe counts presented in Figure 3 can be used to examine the concentration of low-income students within each dependency group, showing that 44% of dependent students, 74% of independent students without dependents, and 80% of independent students with dependents had income below 200% of the poverty guidelines. \n\n\t\tType of Institution Attended\n\nIn discourse about which students are enrolling in postsecondary education, questions often surface regarding where students are enrolling. Figure 4 and Figure 5 explore types of institutions attended by students in different income categories and suggest some variation in the type of institutions attended by students with different income levels. \nAs shown in Figure 4 , 40% of undergraduates attended public two-year institutions, 35% attended public four-year institutions, 15% attended private nonprofit institutions, and 10% attended private for-profit institutions in AY2015-2016. Low-income students are more likely to attend public two-year institutions (or community colleges). The likelihood of attending a private for-profit institution decreases as income increases. \nThe counts presented in Figure 4 can be used to examine the concentration of low-income students within each type of institution, showing that 57% of students attending public two-year institutions, 46% of students attending public four-year institutions, 42% of students attending private nonprofit institutions, and 73% of students attending for-profit institutions had income below 200% of the poverty guidelines. \n Figure 5 illustrates the selectivity of four-year institutions attended by undergraduate students across the poverty bands. Twenty percent of all four-year students attended very selective institutions, 57% attended moderately selective institutions, and 23% attended open admission or minimally selective institutions. Within the lowest poverty band, 18% of students attended a very selective institution. In the second lowest poverty band, 14% attended a very selective institution. Thus, there was a larger percentage of students in the lowest poverty band attending highly selective institutions than there was in the second lowest poverty band. Generally, the proportion of students that attend open admission or minimally selective institutions decreases as income increases.\nThe counts presented in Figure 5 can be used to examine the concentration of low-income students within four-year institutions based on their selectivity, showing that 36% of students at very selective institutions, 43% at moderately selective institutions, and 54% at open admission or minimally selective institutions have income below 200% of the poverty guidelines. \n\n\tIncome Distribution of the National Population and the Undergraduate Population\n\nThe NPSAS data suggest that low-income students have enrolled in postsecondary education at higher levels in more recent years. To explore the extent to which the influx of students is related to changes in the income distribution of the national population, this section uses the CPS ASEC to compare the income distribution of the national population with that of the undergraduate population. Given that the data suggest noteworthy trends for low-income students, the discussion in this section generally focuses on persons with income below 200% of the poverty guideline. \n Figure 6 provides a comparison of the income distribution of the national population aged 15 to 65 and the postsecondary population over three time periods. The data suggest that while the low-income national population grew from 2007 to 2011, the population of low-income undergraduate students grew at a higher rate than the national population of low-income persons. Specifically, from 2007 to 2011 the number of persons with income below 200% of the poverty guidelines grew from 58.5 million to 71.0 million, an increase of 22%.During the same time, the number of low-income students enrolled as undergraduates grew from 8.2 million to 11.7 million, an increase of 44%. Between 2011 and 2015, there was a slight increase in the number of low-income persons (about 2 million) in the national population, while the number of low-income students dropped (by about 1 million). However, the drop in low-income students seems to be associated with the overall drop in postsecondary enrollment. \nIn terms of proportion, low-income persons constitute a much smaller portion of the national population than of the undergraduate postsecondary population. Specifically, low-income persons constituted 29% of the national population in 2007, and 34% of the national population in 2011 and 2015. Among the enrolled undergraduate population, low-income persons accounted for 40% in 2007 and more than 50% in 2011 and 2015. \n Figure 7 illustrates the income distribution of the population aged 15-23 who did not have a postsecondary degree and were not enrolled in postsecondary education. This population could have been considered \"potential enrollees\" and thus may have had characteristics similar to the enrolled population. Due to data limitations, \"potential enrollees\" who were aged 24 and older could not be considered. \nThe data suggest that from 2007 to 2011, the number of low-income students aged 15-23 grew at a faster rate than the national population of persons in this age range. Specifically, from 2007 to 2011 the number of low-income potential enrollees grew from 10.8 million to 12.2 million, an increase of 13%, while the number of low-income enrolled students aged 15-23 grew from 4.0 million to 5.5 million, an increase of 37%. In 2015, the number of low-income persons aged 15-23 enrolled as undergraduates decreased by 6%, while the national population of the same age range decreased by 4%. Again, the drop in enrollment of low-income students appears to be related to the large decrease in total student enrollment. \nIn terms of proportion, low-income persons aged 15-23 constituted a smaller portion of the undergraduate population than of the national population in 2007. However, in 2011 and 2015 low-income persons in this age range constituted similar shares of the national and undergraduate populations. \n\n\tSummary of Selected Data Findings\n\nSince the last reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, the number and proportion of low-income undergraduate students (defined in this report as students with income below 200% of the poverty guidelines) has increased, even as total enrollment has decreased in more recent years. Low-income students now constitute more than 50% of the postsecondary undergraduate population. This report's analysis also found the following: \nCertain student characteristics such as race, age, and dependency status show trends that tend to be associated with income. Independent undergraduate students who have historically been labeled as \"non-traditional\" constitute a large portion of enrolled postsecondary students. These \"non-traditional\" students generally tend to have lower incomes than more traditional students. Nonwhite students account for nearly 50% of the undergraduate population, and they tend to have lower income than white students. The majority of low-income students attend community colleges and a disproportionately high share attend private for-profit institutions. Low-income students were more likely to attend open admission or minimally selective institutions. \n\n\tConsiderations for Congress\n\nThe changing composition of the student population could have implications for policies designed to promote access to postsecondary education. One historical aim of student aid programs has been to increase postsecondary access for those students who demonstrate financial need. The findings in this report suggest that there has been an influx of low-income students enrolling in postsecondary education since the last HEA reauthorization. When compared with national income data, low-income individuals are overrepresented in the postsecondary population. This could suggest that federal policies have been effective at promoting access for low-income persons. Data also show that the number of students in the middle- and upper-income categories has declined somewhat in recent years. This finding could imply that there are challenges that these students face in enrolling in postsecondary education that may not be addressed in current federal policies. \nRelated to access, there is growing interest in the extent to which students who enroll are completing a postsecondary credential. Research suggests that private nonprofit and public four-year institutions tend to have higher completion rates than public two-year institutions and private for-profit institutions. Data show that low-income students tend to be overrepresented at public two-year and for-profit institutions and less represented at public and private nonprofit four-year institutions. Policymakers face consideration of whether federal policies could play a role in encouraging students at various income levels to enroll at the highest performing types of schools. \nData also show that undergraduate students historically labeled as \"non-traditional\" and minority students constitute about 50% of the undergraduate population. Some research suggests that non-traditional and minority students face a unique set of challenges when enrolling and completing postsecondary education. Policymakers face consideration of the extent to which HEA programs are designed to support the success of non-traditional and minority students. \nAnother way in which the analyses presented here may be relevant to policy discussions is in identifying the distribution of students across poverty bands. When designing programs that provide assistance to lower-income individuals, poverty bands are often employed as a mechanism for targeting.\n\n\t\tAppendix. Technical Considerations and Methodology\n\nFamily units in NPSAS correspond with HEA dependency definitions and reflect the individuals whose assets and income are considered in calculating an expected family contribution (EFC). These family units may differ from a family unit in CPS ASEC. To facilitate the analysis in this report, CRS used person-level data in the CPS ASEC data set to create new family units that are more comparable to the family units considered in calculating the EFC. This appendix briefly describes the methodology CRS used for dividing CPS ASEC larger \"family household\" units into smaller family units that resemble the family members and corresponding income reported on the FAFSA for the purposes of calculating a student's EFC. \nFamily Units: CPS ASEC and the EFC Formulas\nA family household in CPS ASEC is a household maintained by a family and may include a related subfamily and unrelated subfamilies who live in the household. A family generally consists of \"a group of two persons or more residing together and related by birth, marriage, or adoption.\" A related subfamily is \"a married couple with or without children, or one parent with one or more of their own single (never married) children under 18 years old, living in a household and related to, but not including, the householder or spouse.\" An unrelated subfamily is \"a family that does not include among its members the householder and relatives of the householder.\" \nGenerally, when calculating a student's EFC, determining the relevant family members whose income would be included depends on the student's personal characteristics. The various aspects of the CPS make it possible to \"separate\" household members that would be a distinct family for the purposes of calculating a student's EFC. For example, a married person without children would be considered \"independent\" using the EFC formula, and the family would include the person and his or her spouse. An unrelated subfamily would also most likely be treated as a separate family by the EFC formula. As such, related subfamilies and unrelated subfamilies in CPS ASEC were treated as separate family units from the primary family for purposes of this report's analysis. \nThe EFC formula considers several criteria for identifying a person as \"independent.\" To capture a large portion of potentially independent students in CPS ASEC who were not addressed through the separation of subfamilies from families, all unmarried persons age 24 and older who do not have children were treated as a separate family unit in this report's analysis. While students can qualify as independent on the basis of characteristics other than age, marital status, and having dependents, it was assumed that any remaining independent students not captured in the analysis would constitute a small portion of the population and thus would not have a substantial impact.\nIncome: CPS ASEC and EFC Formula \nUsing the newly created EFC family unit described above, family income was calculated by taking the sum of each person's income in the unit. In some cases, this calculation of family income would likely include persons whose income would not be included under the EFC formula (e.g., the income of a student who is a dependent, the income of a student's siblings who live in the household with the student's parents). To facilitate the analysis, it was assumed that the income of the additional persons would be a negligible amount and would not greatly affect the family income.\nThe definition of income for the purposes of the EFC formula is somewhat different from income reported in the CPS ASEC. Total income under the EFC formula considers adjusted gross income and several forms of untaxed income but excludes some forms of taxable income. The CPS ASEC measure of income includes money income before taxes or tax credits and excludes capital gains or noncash benefits. To facilitate the analysis, it was assumed that the two measures of income are comparable.", "source": "gov_report_summ", "evaluation": "rouge"}
{"instructions": ["Please help me summarize this government report."], "outputs": ["Money-bail systems allow criminal defendants to avoid prison while awaiting trial by posting a bond set by a fee schedule. The impact of money-bail systems on indigent criminal defendants, however, has prompted legislative interest in and legal challenges to such systems, particularly when the bail does not reflect an individual's specific circumstances, such as potential flight risk or public safety. Critics of money-bail systems assert that fee schedules unduly burden indigent defendants, while supporters argue that fee schedules provide uniformity and ensure that defendants appear at trial.\nSeveral states and municipalities have reformed their bail systems. Voters in New Mexico approved a constitutional amendment that allows judges to deny bail to defendants considered exceptionally dangerous, but otherwise permits pretrial release of nondangerous indigent offenders who cannot make bail. Other jurisdictions have altered or eliminated their money-bail systems in recent years, including cities in Alabama, Georgia, and Maryland.\nCourts have heard legal challenges regarding whether state or local money-bail systems comport with the Constitution's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The Supreme Court has established that the Constitution provides certain protections to indigents during sentencing and postconviction, including ensuring that an indigent's failure to pay a fine cannot result in an automatic revocation of probation or imprisonment beyond the statutory maximum term. The Court, however, has not addressed these rights in the bail context. Applying the rational basis standard, some courts have found money-bail systems that reasonably ensure a defendant's subsequent court appearance to be constitutional. Other courts have indicated that bail systems that detain indigent criminal defendants pretrial, without considering their ability to pay, may be unconstitutional."], "input": "\tMoney-Bail Systems\n\nThe right to bail in noncapital cases has firm roots in the United States, dating back to colonial times and originating in English law. As the Supreme Court recognized, the \"traditional right to freedom before conviction permits the unhampered preparation of a defense and prevents inflicting punishment prior to conviction.\" But the Supreme Court has never recognized a right to bail as absolute, and has held that the government may have legitimate interests in limiting the availability of bail, even for noncapital crimes, based not only on possible flight risk but also on other considerations, including the danger an arrestee poses to public safety or specific members of the community. Nonetheless, the Court has also observed that pretrial detention may have negative consequences for criminal defendants, such as by impairing their ability to maintain employment and to support dependents financially.\nThe impact of state and municipal money-bail systems on indigent criminal defendants has prompted legislative interest in, and judicial challenges to, such systems. Money-bail systems allow defendants to avoid jail while awaiting trial by posting a bond according to a fee schedule. Typically, judges do not assess a detainee's individual characteristics beyond the offense charged; instead, judges set a defendant's bail based on the criminal offense with which he is charged. Defendants who cannot pay bail may remain detained pending trial. Money-bail systems differ from the federal bail system, which gives judicial officers greater discretion over the conditions of a defendant's pretrial release. Federal law also expressly provides that a \"judicial officer may not impose a financial condition that results in the pretrial detention of the person.\"\nCritics of state and local money-bail systems assert, among other things, that fee schedules unduly burden indigent defendants, who face more difficulty paying bail\u2014including relatively low bail fees associated with misdemeanor offenses\u2014than nonindigent defendants accused of similar offenses. Supporters, on the other hand, contend that fee schedules help guarantee a defendant's appearance in subsequent proceedings and treat defendants uniformly. \nIn recent years, a few jurisdictions, including New Mexico, Kentucky, New Jersey, Colorado, and Maryland, have considered legislative proposals or ballot initiatives to eliminate or alter their money-bail systems. Some states, including California, Colorado, and New Jersey, altered their money-bail systems to employ more individualized risk assessment tools rather than using the nature of the offense charged.\nRecently, defendants have challenged various state or municipal bail systems as inconsistent with the Constitution's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. For example, in Jones v. City of Clanton (formerly Varden v. City of Clanton ), the parties settled the case by making release on an unsecured bond the norm rather than the exception. Lawsuits in a few other local jurisdictions have similarly been settled. In Pierce v. City of Velda City , the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri issued a declaratory judgment stating that \"no person may, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, be held in custody after an arrest because the person is too poor to post a monetary bond.\" Subsequently, the parties entered a settlement agreement on a new bail policy. \nDuring the latter years of the Obama Administration, the Department of Justice (DOJ) submitted a statement of interest in litigation challenging the constitutionality of local bail systems. The DOJ filed an amicus brief in a civil rights lawsuit challenging bail amounts based solely on the offense, calling such systems unconstitutional because of their impact upon indigent defendants. As of the date of this report, it is unclear whether the DOJ and the Trump Administration will continue to take an active role in this case.\n\n\tPretrial Release and Pretrial Detention\n\nMoney-bail is only one way states and municipalities provide for pretrial release. Absent clear statutory guidance, judges enjoy broad discretion to determine appropriate conditions for releasing a criminal defendant pending trial. When considering pretrial release, judges weigh several factors such as due process, securing a defendant's subsequent court appearance, and protecting society from the defendant. Judges may use various forms of pretrial release such as personal recognizance, secured or unsecured bonds, or conditional release.\nHistorically, judges have denied defendants bail if they pose a flight risk upon release. For example, judges generally presume defendants charged with capital crimes pose a flight risk. The Supreme Court has recognized that the government may have other, constitutionally legitimate grounds for limiting pretrial release of defendants, including danger to public safety.\nSeveral state statutory and constitutional provisions deny bail to defendants arrested for capital crimes \"where the proof is evident or the presumption is great,\" and a few also limit bail for noncapital offenses with certain characteristics. Some of these latter restrictions have been challenged legally. In contrast, federal law creates a rebuttable presumption that favors (but does not compel) detention of persons charged with certain offenses when a judge or magistrate determines, on the basis of clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant has a prior conviction for an offense included in one of nine categories of detention-qualifying offenses (crimes of violence, etc.), committed while the accused was free on pretrial release and for which the accused was convicted or released from prison within the last five years. Federal law also establishes a second rebuttable presumption of detention in favor of pretrial detention when the judge or magistrate finds probable cause to believe that the accused has committed a 10-year controlled substance offense, federal crime of terrorism offense, or various kidnapping or sexual offenses committed against a child.\n\n\tConstitutional Considerations Related to Bail and Indigence\n\nThe Constitution governs pretrial detention and bail. For money-bail systems, particularly as they apply to indigent defendants, the key provisions are the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Bail Clause and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments' Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.\n\n\t\tEighth Amendment\n\nThe Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that \"[e]xcessive bail shall not be required.\" Bail is excessive when \"set higher than an amount that is reasonably likely to ensure the defendant's presence at the trial.\" While the Eighth Amendment expressly prohibits excessive bail, it does not establish an absolute right to bail. Whether an accused has a right to bail depends on how expansively a court interprets the provision. For example, in Stack v. Boyle , the Court declared that \"this traditional right to freedom before conviction permits the unhampered preparation of a defense, and serves to prevent the infliction of punishment prior to conviction.... Unless this right to bail before trial is preserved, the presumption of innocence, secured only after centuries of struggle, would lose its meaning.\" However, in Carlson v. Landon , decided in the same term as Stack , the Court stated the following:\nThe bail clause was lifted, with slight changes, from the English Bill of Rights Act. In England, that clause has never been thought to accord a right to bail in all cases, but merely to provide that bail shall not be excessive in those cases where it is proper to grant bail. When this clause was carried over into our Bill of Rights, nothing was said that indicated any different concept. The Eighth Amendment has not prevented Congress from defining the classes of cases in which bail shall be allowed in this country. Thus, in criminal cases, bail is not compulsory where the punishment may be death. Indeed, the very language of the Amendment fails to say all arrests must be bailable.\nSimilarly, in United States v. Salerno (Salerno ), the Court found the federal Bail Reform Act to be constitutionally valid under the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Bail Clause. The Bail Reform Act allowed judges to detain individuals in certain limited circumstances when the accused poses a danger to the public at large or to particular members of the public. In upholding the act, the Court noted that the Excessive Bail Clause does not limit congressional considerations to question of flight. In other words, the clause permits the government pursuing compelling interests such as public safety \"though regulation of pre-trial release.\"\n\n\t\tDue Process Requirements\n\nIn addition to Eighth Amendment considerations, pretrial detention and bail must comport with due process principles. Due process requires that statutes imposing pretrial detention serve a compelling governmental interest and do not impose punishment before adjudication of guilt. Moreover, governmental action that deprives an individual of life, liberty, or property must be implemented in a fair, nonarbitrary manner. The U.S. Constitution's due process guarantees are contained in the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment applies to actions taken by the federal government, whereas the Fourteenth Amendment applies to actions taken by state governments. Each clause provides that the government shall not deprive a person of \"life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.\" \nDue process may be procedural or substantive. Based on the principle of \"fundamental fairness,\" procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before a neutral party. Substantive due process \"forbids the government to infringe certain 'fundamental' liberty interests at all, no matter what process is provided, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.\"\nIn Salerno , the Court found that the Bail Reform Act's regulatory character met substantive and procedural due process requirements. Discussing substantive due process, the Court stated the following:\nUnless Congress expressly intended to impose punitive restrictions, the punitive/regulatory distinction turns on whether an alternative purpose to which the restriction may rationally be connected is assignable for it and whether it appears excessive in relation to the alternative purpose assigned to it. We conclude that the detention imposed by the Act falls on the regulatory side of the dichotomy. The legislative history ... indicates that Congress did not formulate the pretrial detention provisions as a punishment for dangerous individuals. Congress instead perceived pretrial detention as a potential solution to a pressing societal problem. There is no doubt that preventing danger to the community is a legitimate regulatory goal, nor are the incidents of pretrial detention excessive in relation to the regulatory goal Congress sought to achieve.\nAs for procedural due process, the Court found that the act's tailored procedural safeguards satisfied the Constitution. \n\n\t\tEqual Protection Considerations\n\nUnder the Constitution's equal protection provisions, courts reviewing government action that distinguishes between classes of people apply different levels of scrutiny depending on the classification used. For example, the Supreme Court has held that governmental action that categorizes people based on certain \"suspect\" classifications, such as race, is subject to strict scrutiny, which is the most searching form of judicial review; other classifications, such as those based on age, are permissible if the statute's use of such classification is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. The Supreme Court has invalidated statutes that impose jail or other adverse consequences based on a defendant's indigence, but it has never held that money-bail systems are constitutionally invalid because indigent defendants have greater difficulty paying bail than other criminal defendants. The Supreme Court, however, has considered the constitutional implications of indigence for criminal defendants in other contexts. \n\n\tSupreme Court Jurisprudence Regarding Indigents\n\nIn a series of cases, the Court held that imprisonment solely because of indigence constitutes invidious discrimination and is constitutionally impermissible. For example, in Bearden v. United States , the Court held that a court could not automatically revoke a defendant's probation for failing to pay a fine and make restitution unless such nonpayment was willful. After the defendant pleaded guilty to burglary and theft by receiving stolen property, the court sentenced him to three years' probation, a $500 fine, and restitution of $250 to be repaid according to a four-month schedule. After the defendant lost his job and could not make the payments, the court revoked his probation, sentencing him to serve the rest of his sentence. \nIn determining the revocation's constitutionality, the Court analogized the equal protection concerns to the fundamental fairness issues of due process analysis and weighed factors including the \"nature of the individual interest affected, the extent to which it is affected, the rationality of the connection between legislative means and purpose, [and] the existence of alternative means for effectuating the purpose ....\" Acknowledging the state's interest in punishment and deterrence, the Court opined that this could be achieved by extending the repayment period or by the defendant performing public service. The Court held that a court must determine whether nonpayment was willful before revoking a defendant's probation. As the lower court had not made such a finding, the Supreme Court held that \"fundamental fairness requires that the petitioner remain on probation\" and remanded the case.\nIn other cases, the Supreme Court has not recognized indigence as a suspect class warranting strict scrutiny analysis. For example, in Ma h er v. Roe , the Court held the following:\nAn indigent woman desiring an abortion does not come within the limited category of disadvantaged classes so recognized by our cases. Nor does the fact that the impact of the regulation falls upon those who cannot pay lead to a different conclusion. In a sense, every denial of welfare to an indigent creates a wealth classification as compared to nonindigents who are able to pay for the desired goods or services.\nAccordingly, when weighing the constitutionality of bail statutes, some lower courts have used the rational basis standard to examine whether a bond requirement would rationally and reasonably ensure the defendant's appearance at trial or serve another legitimate government interest.\n\n\tRecent Lower Court Cases Concerning Bail and Indigents\n\nWhile the Supreme Court has recognized rights for indigents in the sentencing and postconviction contexts, it has not addressed such rights in the bail context. Some courts have viewed claims of excessive bail premised solely on indigence to be uncompelling. For example, in Katona v. City of Cheyenne , a Wyoming federal district court rejected an arrestee's assertion that $35 was excessive bail due to his indigence. Noting that excessive or denial of bail may trigger equal protection concerns, the court applied a rational basis standard of review, examining whether the bond requirement was \"rationally and reasonably\" related to nonresidents appearing at trial. \nSimilarly, in Walker v. City of Calhoun , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction against the City of Calhoun's money-bail system for misdemeanor offenders. Arrested and charged with \"being a pedestrian under the influence of alcohol,\" Mr. Walker spent six nights in jail because he could not afford the $160 cash bond set by the money-bail schedule. He filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the City of Calhoun violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by jailing him and other class members \"because of their inability to pay a generically set amount of money to secure release after an arrest.\" The district court found that the bail schedule \"violate[d] the Constitution insofar as it permits individuals who have sufficient resources to post a bond (or to have one posted for them) to be released immediately, while individuals who do not have those resources must wait forty-eight hours for a hearing.\"\nAppealing to the Eleventh Circuit, the city defended its bail system as constitutional because it discriminated on the seriousness of the offense rather than on wealth. The city argued that the Fourteenth Amendment does not provide \"an absolute entitlement to pretrial release\" and that wealth-based distinctions are subject to rational basis review because wealth is not a suspect class. The city asserted that its bail system met the rational basis standard because it serves the \"legitimate goal of assuring the presence of a defendant at trial.\" \nThe Eleventh Circuit found that the district court erred in applying heightened scrutiny to wealth-based classifications. Citing the Supreme Court's San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez decision, the Eleventh Circuit noted that whether the plaintiff suffered \"an absolute deprivation\" or a \"mere diminishment\" was key because \"differential treatment by wealth is impermissible only where it results in a total deprivation of a benefit because of poverty.\" Because Mr. Walker was not totally deprived of pretrial release but had to wait 48 hours at most to \"receive the same benefit as the more affluent,\" the Eleventh Circuit held that the \"district court was wrong to apply heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.\"\nOther courts have held that bail systems that incarcerate indigent individuals without considering their ability to pay are unconstitutional. In Pierce v. City of Velda City , the district court issued a declaratory judgment, stating that \"no person may, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, be held in custody after an arrest because the person is too poor to post a monetary bond.\" Ultimately, the parties resolved the case through a settlement agreement that changed the jurisdiction's bail system.\n\n\tConclusion\n\nRecognizing that \"[t]here can be no equal justice where the trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has,\" the Supreme Court has invalidated statutes or actions that arguably punished individuals for indigence. But the Supreme Court has generally viewed pretrial release of criminal defendants to be a regulatory, rather than a penal, matter, noting that the government may have legitimate and, in some cases, compelling interests in limiting pretrial release for certain types of defendants. The Supreme Court has never squarely assessed whether applying money-bail systems to indigent criminal defendants as a class is permissible. Lower courts are split on whether money-bail systems impermissibly discriminate against indigents. Some courts have found money-bail systems to be constitutionally suspect, while others have upheld money-bail systems as rationally related to legitimate or compelling governmental interests, including providing for a defendant's subsequent court appearance.", "source": "gov_report_summ", "evaluation": "rouge"}
{"instructions": ["Please help me summarize this government report."], "outputs": ["This report focuses on previous activity in Congress regarding high profile incidents of sexual assault in the military during the summer 2013 through 2016. Included are separate sections on the official responses related to these incidents by the Department of Defense (DOD), the Obama Administration, and Congress including legislation during the 113th (2013-2014) Congress and 114th Congress (2015-2016). The last section is a resource guide for sources in this report and related materials on sexual assault and prevention during this period. This report will not be updated and supersedes CRS Report R43168, Military Sexual Assault: Chronology of Activity in Congress and Related Resources.\nFor current information regarding Congress and issues on sexual assault in the military, see CRS Report R44944, Military Sexual Assault: A Framework for Congressional Oversight, by Kristy N. Kamarck and Barbara Salazar Torreon. For legislative initiatives in the 115th Congress, see CRS Report R44923, FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, by Kristy N. Kamarck, Lawrence Kapp, and Barbara Salazar Torreon and CRS Report R45343, FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, by Bryce H. P. Mendez et al."], "input": "\tIntroduction\n\nBeginning the summer 2013 through 2016, there were numerous reports in the media on sexual assault incidents in the U.S. armed services. In many cases, such reports were followed by questions on what actions were taken by the Department of Defense (DOD), the Obama Administration, and Congress to address the issue. This report lists a comprehensive chronology of official activities in response to incidents of military sexual assault, as well as legislative action on the issue. The report is divided into three sections: the DOD and the Obama Administration's actions, congressional action, and legislation in the 113 th (2013-2014) and 114 th (2015-2016) Congresses. Also included is a resources section with related articles, hearings, and reports. Information in this report was compiled from the official government websites of DOD, the Obama White House and Congress.gov for historical background and will not be updated. \n\n\tActions by Department of Defense and the Obama Administration\n\nJune 13, 2012 \u2013 DOD announced Army Major General Gary S. Patton as the new director of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO).\nSeptember 25, 2012 \u2013 As part of the DOD's efforts to confront the crime of sexual assault in the military, then Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced improvements to prospective commander and senior enlisted training and a review of the initial military training environment in every service. \nDecember 21, 2012 \u2013 DOD released key findings from the Academic Program Year (APY) 2011-2012 Report on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the United States Military Service Academies. According to this report, the overall prevalence rate of unwanted sexual contact increased in all three military academies. From 2011 to 2012, the Air Force Academy in Colorado showed the largest increase in reported sexual assaults from 33 to 52 incidents. Sexual assaults at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD, increased from 11 to 15, and were up at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, NY, from 10 to 13.\n\n\t\t2013\n\nJanuary 18, 2013 \u2013 DOD announced the release of the 2012 Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Reserve Component Members . This report included rates of unwanted sexual contact, unwanted gender-related behaviors (i.e., sexual harassment and sexist behavior), and gender discriminatory behaviors and sex discrimination reported by survey respondents during the past 12 months.\nMarch 7, 2013 \u2013 Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, in a letter responding to Members of Congress, wrote that an internal review was being conducted of a decision by a senior Air Force commander, Lt. Gen. Craig Franklin, to overturn the sexual assault conviction of an Air Force fighter pilot, Lt. Col. James Wilkerson. Colonel Wilkerson was found guilty in November 2012 of aggravated sexual assault and was sentenced to one year in military prison. Lt. General Franklin's decision to overturn the findings of the court-martial freed Colonel Wilkerson, and allowed him to be reinstated in the Air Force. In his letter, Hagel said that while General Franklin's decision could not be overturned, he had asked Pentagon lawyers and the Secretary of the Air Force to review the way in which General Franklin decided the case. He also said he wanted a review of whether the military should change the way it handles sexual assault cases.\nApril 2, 2013 \u2013 Secretary Chuck Hagel stated in a message to all DOD personnel on Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month that, \"Together, we must work every day to instill a climate that does not tolerate or ignore sexist behavior, sexual harassment, or sexual assault. These have no place in the United States military and violate everything we stand for and the values we defend.\"\nApril 8, 2013 \u2013 Secretary Hagel announced that DOD's Office of General Counsel will review Article 60 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) after an Air Force officer's court-martial conviction for sexual assault was dismissed using the authority provided by Article 60.\nMay 6, 2013 \u2013 The Office of the Secretary of Defense released a 24-page memorandum from Secretary Hagel to all heads of the military services regarding DOD's 2013 Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Strategy, and the release of the Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military 2012 (2 volumes). According to this report, in FY2012 (October 1, 2011, through September 30, 2012), the number of sexual assaults reported by members of the military rose 6% to 3,374. An anonymous survey of military personnel showed the number of service members who had experienced unwanted sexual contact could be as many as 26,000 but most never reported the incidents. That number is an increase over the 19,000 estimated assaults in 2011. These reports involved offenses ranging from abusive sexual contact to rape.\nMay 7, 2013 \u2013 In a DOD press briefing, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Major General Gary Patton, director of SAPRO, announced new series of actions to further DOD's sexual assault and prevention efforts. Hagel directed service chiefs to develop methods to hold all military commanders accountable for establishing command climates of dignity and respect in incorporating sexual assault prevention and victim care principles in their commands.\nMay 7, 2013 \u2013 DOD announced the establishment of the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel consisting of nine selected appointees. Secretary of Defense Hagel appointed five members to serve on the response systems panel, who joined four members appointed by the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the chairman and ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. \nMay 14, 2013 \u2013 The Army announced that an Army Sergeant First Class assigned to III Corps, Fort Hood, TX, was under investigation for pandering, abusive sexual contact, assault, and maltreatment of subordinates.\nMay 15, 2013 \u2013 Returning from NATO meetings in Brussels, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, told reporters that sexual assault in the Armed Forces constitutes a crisis in the military. He further stated that \"We're losing the confidence of the women who serve that we can solve this problem, and that's a crisis.\"\nMay 16, 2013 \u2013 At the White House, President Obama met with senior military leaders on the issue of sexual assault in the U.S. Armed Forces. The President stated that not only is it \"shameful and disgraceful\" but also \"dangerous to our national security.\"\nMay 17, 2013 \u2013 During a press briefing, Defense Secretary Hagel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Martin Dempsey discussed their meeting with President Obama, Vice President Biden, and senior enlisted and officer leadership in the U.S. military. Dempsey told the Armed Forces Press Service that he believes that the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may be factors in the growing incidents of sexual assault. He also stated that: \"If a perpetrator shows up at a court-martial with a rack of ribbons and has four deployments and a Purple Heart, there is certainly a risk that we might be a little too forgiving of that particular crime.\"\nMay 17, 2013 \u2013 In an interview, Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen. Mark Walsh, said that sexual assaults in his branch of the military typically involve alcohol use and can be traced to a lack of respect for women. \"We have a problem with respect for women that leads to many of the situations that result in sexual assault in our Air Force,\" he told reporters in his Pentagon office. Walsh further stated that combatting the crisis is his top priority and that he reviews every reported case of sexual assault. \nMay 22, 2013 \u2013 The Pentagon announced that DOD's sexual assault prevention staff would be exempt from furloughs. According to Pentagon spokeswoman, Cynthia O. Smith, \"The full-time civilians working these programs and implementing policies will not be furloughed. This will ensure responsive victim care and ensure all the programs recently directed by Secretary Hagel are implemented swiftly and efficiently.\"\nMay 24, 2013 \u2013 President Obama addressed graduates of the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD, and noted in his commencement speech that the misconduct of some in the military can endanger U.S. forces and undermine U.S. efforts to achieve security and peace worldwide. He further stated that those who commit sexual assault are not only committing a crime, they also \"threaten the trust and discipline that make our military strong.\"\nMay 25, 2013 \u2013 In a commencement speech at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, NY, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told graduates that they must be the generation of leaders that will commit to building a culture of respect for every member of the military. He stated that sexual harassment and sexual assault in the military \"are a profound betrayal of sacred oaths and sacred trusts.\" He also quoted President Obama's remarks at the Naval Academy when he said, \"these crimes have no place in the greatest military on earth.\"\nMay 30, 2013 \u2013 Pentagon officials reaffirmed DOD's commitment to fighting sexual assault by launching the Safe HelpRoom at http://SafeHelpline.org , a Sexual Assault Support Service for the DOD community. This new service allows victims to participate in moderated group chat sessions to connect with and support one another in a secure online environment. The Safe HelpRoom is in response to a need for peer support services identified by users of DOD's Safe Helpline for sexual assault victims.\nJune 6, 2013 \u2013 In a speech at the 2013 Joint Women's Leadership Symposium, Navy Adm. James A. Winnefeld Jr., vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said plans to combat and eliminate sexual assault include a greater investment in specially trained sexual assault investigators and a push for more psychological, medical, and legal assistance for victims. The vice chairman also said officials will examine the scientific roots of behavioral factors associated with potential predators, which will assist sexual assault prevention efforts.\nJune 7, 2013 \u2013 The Pentagon released a statement that Maj. Gen. Michael T. Harrison was suspended of his duties as the Commanding General of United States Army Japan and I Corps for failing in his duties as a commander to report or investigate an allegation of sexual assault.\nJune 7, 2013 \u2013 Air Force officials announced Maj. Gen. Margaret H. Woodward has been assigned to direct the Air Force Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office to replace Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski, the former chief of the Air Force Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program. He was arrested and charged by Arlington County, VA, police for allegedly being drunk and groping a woman in a parking lot one mile from the Pentagon. In the previous year, Maj. Gen. Woodward led the investigation of Air Force training in the wake of a sexual assault scandal centered at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas.\nJune 27, 2013 \u2013 Defense Secretary Hagel met in person with the Sexual Assault Response Systems Review Panel for the first time. According to the Pentagon, \"the panel will conduct an independent review and assessment of the systems used to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate crimes involving sexual assault and related offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and will develop recommendations to improve the effectiveness of those systems.\" DOD established the panel in accordance with the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013 ( P.L. 112-239 , Section 576 (a)). Previously, Hagel held a teleconference with panel members.\nJuly 3, 2013 \u2013 The Chief of the National Guard Bureau, Army Gen. Frank J. Grass, launched a comprehensive campaign designed to assist National Guard units in combating sexual assault as part of a military-wide effort to protect victims and eradicate the crime from the ranks.\nJuly 9, 2013 \u2013 DOD Inspector General (IG) released its report, Joint Warfighting and Readiness Evaluation of the Military Criminal Investigative Organizations Sexual Assault Investigations . The report evaluated the Military Criminal Investigative Organizations' (MCIOs') sexual assault investigations in 2010 to determine whether they were adequately investigated. The report found most MCIO investigations (89%) met or exceeded the investigative standards and returned only cases with significant deficiencies (11%) to the MCIOs for corrective action.\nJuly 18, 2013 \u2013 The Air Force adopted two new measures to eliminate sexual assault from within the ranks, including requiring mandatory discharge for airmen, officer or enlisted, who commit sexual assault, and requiring the Air Force's most senior commanders to review actions taken on these cases. In addition, the Air Force Academy is reviewing the results of a survey on sexual assault taken on June 24, 2013. Suggestions from survey respondents ranged from involving faculty with character coaching to a complete revamping of how the Air Force Academy trains its freshmen.\nJuly 18, 2013 \u2013 Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced additional resources for investigators and a new initiative designed to enhance accountability and transparency across the Navy. Mabus approved nearly $10 million to hire more than 50 additional Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) Family and Sexual Violence Program personnel to shorten investigation times, and directed the Navy and Marine Corps to regularly publish online the results of each service's courts- martial.\nJuly 18, 2013 \u2013 The Air Force announced that airmen who commit sexual assaults will be discharged, and senior commanders must review actions taken on sexual assault cases under new Air Force initiatives as of July 2, 2013.\nAugust 15, 2013 \u2013 Defense Secretary Hagel announced seven new anti-sexual assault initiatives in a memo detailing \"... absolute and sustained commitment to providing a safe environment in which every service member and DOD civilian is free from the threat of sexual harassment and assault,\" he wrote in a statement. \"Our success depends on a dynamic and responsive approach. We, therefore, must continually assess and strive to improve our prevention and response programs.\" \nOctober 3, 2013 \u2013 Air Force Col. Alan R. Metzler, the deputy director for SAPRO, emphasized that the first step to stopping sexual assault in the military is through prevention but when prevention fails, new measures to improve victims' confidence and combat underreporting were needed. Metzler outlined the DOD Sexual Assault Advocate Certification Program (D-SAACP) and the Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database (DSAID), two initiatives set to improve the advocacy services provided to victims of sexual assault.\nNovember 9, 2013 \u2013 Army Maj. Gen. Gary S. Patton, director of DOD's SAPRO, reported on DOD's recent prevention and awareness successes before the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel. He testified that new DOD initiatives to combat sexual assault helped create a 46% jump in victims reporting compared to the previous year.\nDecember 20, 2013 \u2013 President Obama instructed Defense Secretary Hagel and Chairman Dempsey to continue their efforts to make substantial improvements with respect to sexual assault prevention and response, including to the military justice system. He also directed that they report back with a full-scale review of their progress, by December 1, 2014.\n\n\t\t2014\n\nJanuary 10, 2014 \u2013 Army Maj. Gen. Jeffrey J. Snow, the new SAPRO chief announced the release of the Annual Report to Congress on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the Military Service Academies . The report covered the 2012-13 academic year, and found in 2013, reports of sexual assault decreased at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York and the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The number of reported incidents went up at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland.\nJanuary 30, 2014 \u2013 The independent Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel accepted a subcommittee recommendation that senior military commanders retain authority for referring these crimes to courts-martial.\nMay 1, 2014 \u2013 DOD released the 2013 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military . The report covered the period from Oct. 1, 2012, through Sept. 30, 2013, and revealed 5,061 reports of sexual assault in the Defense Department, a 50 percent jump from the previous year. More than 70 percent of all cases that the military had jurisdiction resulted in criminal charges.\nJuly 17, 2014 \u2013 DOD collaborated with the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime to develop a curriculum that expands on the skills learned in initial sexual assault response coordinator and sexual assault prevention and response victim advocate training. \nDecember 4, 2014 \u2013 Secretary Hagel released DOD's Report to the President of the United States on Sexual Assault Prevention and Response on its progress in addressing sexual assault in the military, and announced four directives to further strengthen the department's prevention and response program. According to this report, based on survey data, servicemembers experienced fewer sexual assaults in FY2014 than in FY2012, an estimated 19,000, down from 26,000. \n\n\t\t2015\n\nJanuary 16, 2015 \u2013 Secretary Hagel at the Air Force Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Summit remarked that the fight to end sexual assault in the military must be \"personal.\" He cited \"encouraging progress\" over the last year, but acknowledged more can be done, notably in areas such as social retaliation, which he said stems from the overall environment. \nFebruary 11, 2015 \u2013 The annual report on sexual harassment and violence at the military service academies estimated that overall rates of unwanted sexual contact at the military service academies declined in Academic Program Year (APY) 2013-2014, decreased for both men and women, indicating that fewer sexual assaults occurred at the academies in APY 13-14 than in APY 11-12. \nFebruary 19, 2015 \u2013 Health and criminal investigation experts spoke at the Army's Sexual Harassment/Assault Response Program Summit on the underreporting of male victims of sexual assault in the military due to factors such as shame and fear of being ostracized.\nMarch 26, 2015 \u2013 SAPRO head Army Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Snow monitored 50 initiatives put in place by past Defense secretaries Leon Panetta and Chuck Hagel. According to Snow, the most recent data, gathered last year, shows the past-year prevalence of sexual assault is down significantly, Snow said. Estimates indicate there were 6,000 to 7,000 fewer sexual assaults in 2014 than in 2012.\nMay 1, 2015 \u2013 According to the 2014 RAND Military Workplace Stud y, \"the percentage of active duty women who experienced unwanted sexual contact over the past year declined from 6.1% in 2012 to an estimated 4.3% in 2014. For active duty men, the estimated prevalence rate dropped from 1.2% in 2012 to 0.9% in 2014. Based on these rates, an estimated 18,900 service members experienced unwanted sexual contact in 2014, down from around 26,000 in 2012.\" \nMay 22, 2015 \u2013 Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced Army Maj. Gen. Camille M. Nichols will assume duties as director of SAPRO effective June 8, 2015.\n\n\t\t2016\n\nJanuary 8, 2016 \u2013 DOD announced the release of the Annual Report on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the Military Service Academies for A cademic P rogram Y ear 2014-2015 . Data in the report indicated the academies received 91 sexual assault reports during the academic year, an increase of 32 reports over the previous year.\nApril 2 8 , 2016 \u2013 Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced a sexual assault retaliation prevention and response strategy aimed at how the department supports servicemembers who experience retaliation, while aligning prevention and response efforts across the services. \nMay 5, 2016 \u2013 The annual report of the Defense Department's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program indicated that DOD's efforts are having an impact. In FY2015, service members made 6,083 reports of sexual assault \u2013 the same rate as the previous fiscal year, with four in 1,000 servicemembers reporting sexual assault despite a smaller active force size. In addition, 21 percent of those making restricted reports in fiscal 2015 chose to convert to unrestricted reports, enabling them to participate in the military justice process.\nSeptember 19 , 2016 \u2013 The Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD, hosted an all-day training event to strengthen how military and civilian communities work together to support servicemembers who report sexual assault in a joint program between DOD and the Justice Department.\nOctober 19, 2016 \u2013 DOD released the 2016 Military Investigation and Justice Experience Survey that allowed servicemembers who have experienced sexual assault and elected to participate in the military justice process the opportunity to provide DOD with direct feedback on their experiences; and to improve the services and support servicemembers reporting sexual assault. \nDecember 15, 2016 \u2013 Defense Department officials announced the release of the \"DOD Plan to Prevent and Respond to Sexual Assault of Military Men,\" designed to enhance outreach to military men and increase efforts to help them recover.\n\n\tCongressional Action and Legislation\n\nThe following information was compiled using Congress.gov, Congressional Quarterly (CQ.com), House.gov, Senate.gov, and Roll Call. See the section \"Resources\" for a list of congressional hearings, reports and other documents.\n\n\t\t113th Congress (2013-2014)\n\nJanuary 23, 2013 \u2013 The House Armed Services Committee held a hearing on sexual misconduct at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, TX.\nJanuary 25, 2013 \u2013 H.R. 430 , Protect Our Military Trainees Act, was introduced. This legislation would have amended the Uniform Code of Military Justice to protect new members of the Armed Forces who are undergoing basic training from the sexual advances of the members of the Armed Forces responsible for their instruction. It also requires that violators be punished as a court-martial may direct. \nMarch 5, 2013 \u2013 H.R. 975 , the Servicemember Mental Health Review Act, was introduced. This bill would have amended Title 10, United States Code, to extend the duration of the Physical Disability Board of Review and to the expand the authority of such Board to review the separation of members of the Armed Forces on the basis of a mental condition not amounting to disability, including separation on the basis of a personality or adjustment disorder. This would have included a review of those victims who have suffered military sexual trauma. \nMarch 13, 2013 \u2013 S. 548 , Military Sexual Assault Prevention Act of 2013, was introduced, read twice, and referred to the Senate Armed Services Committee. This legislation aimed to amend Title 10, United States Code, and to improve capabilities of the Armed Forces to prevent and respond to sexual assault and sexual harassment in the Armed Forces.\nMarch 13, 2013 \u2013 Victims of sexual assault in the military testified before a Senate panel examining the military's handling of sexual assault cases and stated that the \"military justice system is broken.\" They urged Congress to make changes in the law that would stem the rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment that they said are pervasive in the service branches. Several male Navy veterans testified before the Senate Armed Service Committee's military personnel panel investigating sexual assaults in the military. One recounted that he was raped in 2000 by a higher-ranking petty officer aboard a submarine. He told the committee that he carries permanent shame not for the sexual assault but over how the Navy forced him to leave. He stated in his testimony, \"I carry my discharge as an official and permanent symbol of shame, on top of the trauma of the physical attack, the retaliation and its aftermath.\"\nMarch 20, 2013 \u2013 S. 628 , Servicemember Mental Health Review Act, was introduced, read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. Related to H.R. 975 , this bill would have amended Title 10, United States Code, to extend the duration of the Physical Disability Board of Review and to the expand the authority of such board to review the separation of members of the Armed Forces on the basis of a mental condition not amounting to disability, including separation on the basis of a personality or adjustment disorder. This would have included a review of those victims who may have suffered military sexual trauma.\nApril 17, 2013 \u2013 H.R. 1593 , Sexual Assault Training Oversight and Prevention (STOP) Act, was introduced. This bill seeks to amend Title 10, United States Code, by establishing a Sexual Assault Oversight and Response Council and an enhanced Sexual Assault Oversight and Response Office \"to improve the prevention of and response to sexual assault in the Armed Forces, and by requiring the appointment of a Director of Military Prosecutions for sexual-related offenses committed by a member of the Armed Forces.\" \nApril 26, 2013 \u2013 A U.S. senator reportedly put a hold on the nomination of Air Force Lt. Gen. Susan Helms, nominated to serve as vice commander of the U.S. Space Command. Earlier in February 2012, Gen. Helms rejected the recommendation of legal counsel and overturned the conviction of an Air Force captain who had been found guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a female lieutenant.\nMay 7, 2013 \u2013 S. 871 , Combating Military Sexual Assault Act of 2013, was introduced, read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. This legislation would have aimed to provide any victim with a special military lawyer who would assist them throughout the process, prohibit sexual contact between instructors and trainees during and within 30 days of completion of basic training or its equivalent, and ensure that sexual assault response coordinators are available to help members of the National Guard and Reserve.\nMay 7, 2013 \u2013 H.R. 1864 , to amend Title 10, United States Code, would have required an Inspector General investigation of allegations of retaliatory personnel actions taken in response to making protected communications regarding sexual assault, was introduced and referred to the House Armed Services Committee. This bill would have required the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with respect to the Coast Guard, or any of the military departments to investigate allegations of retaliatory personnel actions taken in response to making protected communications regarding alleged instances of rape, sexual assault, or other forms of sexual misconduct in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.\nMay 7, 2013 \u2013 At the Senate Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Personnel hearing Gen. Mark Welsh, the Air Force's Chief of Staff, told the committee that he and Air Force Secretary Michael Donley were \"appalled\" by the charges against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski, branch chief of the Air Force's Sexual Assault and Prevention Office. He was arrested and charged by Arlington County, VA, police for allegedly being drunk and groping a woman in a parking lot one mile from the Pentagon. \"Sexual assault prevention and response efforts are critically important to us,\" Welsh said. \"It is unacceptable that this occurs anywhere, at any time, in our Air Force.\"\nMay 8, 2013 \u2013 H.R. 1867 , the Better Enforcement for Sexual Assault Free Environments (BE SAFE) Act of 2013, was introduced, read twice, and referred to the House Armed Services Committee. This bill would have amended Title 10, United States Code, \"to require an Inspector General investigation of allegations of retaliatory personnel actions taken in response to making protected communications regarding sexual assault.\" This bill would ensure those found guilty of rape, sexual assault, sodomy, or an attempt to commit any of those crimes, are\u2014at a minimum\u2014dismissed or dishonorably discharged from the military. The five-year statute of limitations within the military's justice system for sexual assault cases would be eliminated, and legal assistance services available to victims would be expanded.\nMay 8, 2013 \u2013 In a hearing of the Defense Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, senators questioned the Air Force's top leaders over rising sexual assaults in the military. Some senators cited DOD statistics from the Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military 2012 on the number of incidents of sexual assaults the same week Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski, Chief of the Air Force's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Branch, was arrested and charged with sexual battery.\nMay 9, 2013 \u2013 A hearing of the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee on the Air Force budget was held. Witnesses included Michael Donley, Secretary of the Air Force, and General Mark Welsh, Air Force Chief of Staff. Members of the committee questioned them on Defense Secretary Hagel's review of the decision by Lt. Gen. Craig Franklin to dismiss Lt. Col. James Wilkerson's sexual assault conviction.\nMay 14, 2013 \u2013 H.Res. 213 , a resolution to establish the \"Special Committee on Sexual Assault and Abuse in the Armed Forces\" was introduced. A \"Dear Colleague\" memorandum urged support of this legislation referencing Gen. Martin Dempsey's denouncement of military sexual assault as a \"crisis\" and the need for Congress to address this problem in a \"deeper, more comprehensive manner.\" This Special Committee would have included 19 members appointed by the Speaker and Minority Leader, as well as chairman and ranking members of the committees on Armed Services, Appropriations, Judiciary, and Oversight and Government Reform.\nMay 14, 2013 \u2013 H.R. 1960 , a bill to authorize appropriations for FY2014 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, was introduced. The FY2014 NDAA addressed the issue of sexual assault in the military by establishing minimum sentencing guidelines for any service members found guilty of sexual assault as well as other provisions.\nMay 15, 2013 \u2013 H.R. 1986 , Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) Deployment Act, was introduced. This bill would have provided for the assignment of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners-Adult/Adolescent to brigades and equivalent units of the Armed Forces. \nMay 15, 2013 \u2013 H.R. 2002 , Combating Military Sexual Assault Act of 2013, was introduced and referred to the House Committee on Armed Services. This bill was related to S. 871 , and would have provided any sexual assault victim with a special military lawyer who would assist them throughout the process, prohibit sexual contact between instructors and trainees during and within 30 days of completion of basic training or its equivalent, and ensure that sexual assault response coordinators (SARCs) are available to help members of the National Guard and Reserve. \nMay 16, 2013 \u2013 H.R. 2016 , Military Justice Improvement Act of 2013, was introduced and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. This bill would have required \"a commanding officer who receives a report of a sexual-related offense involving a member in such officer's chain of command to act immediately upon such report by way of referral to the appropriate criminal investigative office or service.\" This bill was related to S. 538 , Military Sexual Assault Prevention Act of 2013, and S. 967 , Military Justice Improvement Act of 2013.\nMay 16, 2013 \u2013 S. 967 , Military Justice Improvement Act of 2013, was introduced, read twice, and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. This bill would have required a commanding officer who receives a report of a sex-related offense involving a member in such officer's chain of command to act immediately upon such report by way of referral to the appropriate criminal investigative office or service.\nMay 21, 2013 \u2013 S. 992 , a bill to provide for offices on sexual assault prevention and response under the Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces, to require reports on additional offices and selection of sexual assault prevention and response personnel, and for other purposes. This bill was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.\nMay 22, 2013 \u2013 A House panel passed a number of changes in sexual assault prevention programs that limited commander discretion in reducing or dismissing rape and assault charges and expanded support services for victims. The House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel approved the personnel issues as part of H.R. 1960 , the FY2014 NDAA bill.\nMay 22, 2013 \u2013 The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense held a hearing on the Army's FY 2014 Budget Request. Witnesses included Secretary of the Army, John McHugh and Chief of Staff of the Army, General Raymond T. Odierno. Army Secretary McHugh announced at this hearing that the service will soon require soldiers being considered for sexual assault prevention jobs to undergo behavioral-health evaluations as a way of screening out potential sex offenders from these high-profile positions. This was in response to a senator's question about the criteria for sexual assault prevention jobs. McHugh said that service record and availability are the only criteria commanders are using to fill these jobs since sexual-assault prevention positions do not fall under any military occupational specialty and lack career incentives.\nMay 23, 2013 \u2013 S. 1032 , Better Enforcement for Sexual Assault Free Environments Act of 2013, was introduced, read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. This bill would amend Title 10, United States Code, to make certain improvements in the Uniform Code of Military Justice related to sex-related offenses committed by members of the Armed Forces.\nJune 4, 2013 \u2013 The uniformed chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard appeared before a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Military Personnel. These military leaders acknowledged that despite a \"zero tolerance\" for sexual abuse, they had neglected the \"epidemic\" in the ranks by not always monitoring subordinate commanders. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey pointed to competing demands and pressures of fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as a justification for lack of adequate monitoring. The Service Chiefs voiced support for legislative changes that would take tougher action against offenders and provide more support for victims of military sexual assault. They opposed a legislative proposal that would remove unit commanders' legal power to oversee major criminal cases and transfer that authority to uniformed prosecutors. The Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Ray Odierno, noted that taking away commanders' authority in matters of military justice would adversely impact discipline and that \"we cannot, however, simply 'prosecute' our way out of this problem. At its heart, sexual assault is a discipline issue that requires a culture change.\"\nJune 4, 2013 \u2013 S. 1092 was introduced, read twice, and referred to the Senate Armed Services Committee. This bill would have amended Title 10, United States Code, to require an Inspector General investigation of allegations of retaliatory personnel actions taken in response to making protected communications regarding sexual assault.\nJune 6, 2013 \u2013would allow victims of sexual assault to apply for a permanent change The House Armed Services Committee passed H.R. 1960 , the NDAA for FY2014, by a vote of 59-2. According to the Committee's Fact Sheet, \"the FY14 NDAA of station or unit transfer, while authorizing the Secretary of Defense to inform commanders of their authority to remove or temporarily reassign service members who are the alleged perpetrators of sexual assault. It also requires the provision of victims' counsels, qualified and specially trained lawyers in each of the services, to be made available to provide legal assistance to the victims of sex-related offenses. The FY14 NDAA adds rape, sexual assault, or other sexual misconduct to the protected communications of service members with a Member of Congress or an Inspector General.\"\nJune 14, 2013 \u2013 The House passed H.R. 1960 , the NDAA for FY2014 by a vote of 315 to 108 (Roll no. 244). This bill includes a provision protecting victims of sexual assault in the Armed Forces as protected communications under military whistle-blower laws, to shield victims against retaliatory actions. The measure seeks to encourage more victims to report assaults, rape and other forms of sexual misconduct.\nJune 17, 2013 \u2013 H.R. 2397 , \"Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014,\" was introduced and referred to the House Committee on Appropriations. It was reported as an original measure, H.Rept. 113-113 . Lawmakers wrote in this committee report that they were \"outraged by the pervasive problem of sexual assault in the Armed Forces. Sexual assault is not just an issue in the military; it is an epidemic. To address it, the Committee believes that there must be a culture change at every level of the military, from the most senior leadership to the most junior ranks.\" Included was a measure that would provide $182 million for the Pentagon's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) and for an expansion of a victim's counseling program. For FY2013, the programs received $95 million. The bill included $25 million that was not requested by the administration in a transfer account to expand assistance across the Defense Department. \nJune 20, 2013 \u2013 S. 1197 , NDAA for Fiscal Year 2014, was introduced in the Senate. This bill would have authorized \"appropriations for fiscal year 2014 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes,\" and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. The original measure was reported to the Senate in Report No. 113-44 and placed on the Legislative Calendar under General Orders (Calendar No. 91). Included in this bill was Title V\u2014Military Personnel Policy, Subtitle E\u2014Sexual Assault Prevention and Response and Military Justice.\nJune 27, 2013 \u2013 H.R. 1864 , a bill \"To amend Title 10, United States Code, to require an Inspector General investigation of allegations of retaliatory personnel actions taken in response to making protected communications regarding sexual assault,\" was agreed to/passed in the House, 423-0 (Roll no. 294).\nJuly 18, 2013 \u2013 Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Navy Adm. James A. Winnefeld Jr., the vice chairman, in a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee said that commanders should retain responsibility for prosecuting service members accused of sexual assault, and taking that authority away could harm good order and discipline.\nJuly 2 2 , 2013 \u2013 H.R. 2777 , Stop Pay for Violent Offenders Act, was introduced \"to amend Title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to suspend the pay and allowances of a member of the Armed Forces who is held in confinement pending trial by court-martial or by civil authority for any sex-related offense or capital offense.\"\nJuly 24, 2013 \u2013 H.Amdt. 408 to H.R. 2397 , an amendment to provide funds to identify individuals who were separated from the military on the grounds of a disorder subsequent to reporting a sexual assault and, if appropriate, correcting their record. This amendment (A065) was agreed to by voice vote.\nJuly 24, 2013 \u2013 H.R. 2397 , \"Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014,\" was passed/agreed to in House, 315 - 109 (Roll no. 414).\nOctober 22, 2013 \u2013 H.R. 3304 , the NDAA for FY2014, was introduced in the House. As introduced, the bill would have provided for a defense counsel interview of victim of an alleged sex-related offense in presence of trial counsel, counsel for the victim, or a Sexual Assault Victim Advocate, prohibition on service in the Armed Forces by individuals who have been convicted of certain sexual offenses, Coast Guard regulations regarding request for permanent change of station or unit transfer by victim of sexual assault, temporary administrative reassignment or removal of an active duty member accused of committing a sexual assault, Inspector General investigation of allegations of retaliatory personnel actions taken in response to making protected communications regarding sexual assault, compliance tracking of commanding officers in conducting organizational climate assessments for purposes of preventing and responding to sexual assaults, advancement of submittal deadline for report of independent panel on assessment of military response systems to sexual assault, retention of certain forms on sexual assault, timely access to Sexual Assault Response Coordinators by the National Guard and Reserves, and qualifications and selection of Department of Defense sexual assault prevention and response personnel and required availability of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners. It also would establish commanding officer actions regarding sexual assault reports, an eight-day incident reporting requirement in response to unrestricted report of sexual assault in which the victim is a member of the Armed Forces, and curricula that addresses the prevention of sexual assault at the military service academies.\nDecember 26, 2013 \u2013 H.R. 3304 , the NDAA for FY2014 became P.L. 113-66 . As enacted, the bill included more than two dozen provisions to address an epidemic of sexual assault in the military in Title XVII\u2014Sexual Assault Prevention and Response and Related Reforms, Subtitle A\u2014Reform of Uniform Code of Military Justice. \nFebruary 26, 2014 \u2013 Dr. Karen S. Guice, principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, and other Defense Department officials testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee's personnel subcommittee on the relationship between military sexual assault survivors and the subsequent development of suicide and post-traumatic stress disorder. \nApril 9, 2014 \u2013 H.R. 4435 , the Howard P. \"Buck\" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, was introduced in the House. The bill would have applied Title XVII of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 ( P.L. 113-66 ; 127 Stat. 950) to the military service academies, consulted with victims of sexual assault regarding victims' preference for prosecution of offense by court-martial or civilian court, created a confidential review of characterization of terms of discharge for victims of sexual offenses, revised requirements relating to DOD policy on retention of evidence in a sexual assault case to allow return of personal property upon completion of related proceedings, required the DOD Inspector General to review separation of members who made unrestricted reports of sexual assault, and would have created a deadline for submission of report containing results of review of Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity role in sexual harassment cases. Prior to passing in the House, the House Armed Services Committee rejected an amendment from Congresswoman Speier that would have removed the military chain of command from decisions to prosecute sexual assault cases and other major crimes, except offenses that are unique to the military. She offered an alternative proposal, which would have only removed commanding officers' prosecutorial discretion for instances of sexual assault, that was also rejected by a 28-34 vote. It was received in the Senate, read twice, and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 425.\nJune 2, 2014 \u2014 S. 2410 , the Carl Levin National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, was introduced in the Senate. It was placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 402. The bill included measures on military justice such as enhancing sexual assault prevention and response, the application of P.L. 113-66 , Title XVII to military academies, and the collaboration between the Departments of Justice and Defense.\nDecember 19 , 2014 \u2014 H.R. 3979 , the Carl Levin and Howard P. \"Buck\" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, was signed as P.L. 113-291 . Subtitle D\u2014Military Justice, Including Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence Prevention and Response addressed the following: modification of DOD policy on retention of evidence in a sexual assault cases to permit return of personal property upon completion of related proceedings; requirements relating to Sexual Assault Forensic Examiner; analysis and assessment of disposition of most serious offenses; a plan for limited use of certain information on sexual assaults in restricted reports by military criminal investigative organizations; the establishment of a Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces; confidential review of the terms of discharge of sexual assault survivors; deadline for submission of report containing results of review of Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity role in sexual harassment cases; and applied Title XVII of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2014 ( P.L. 113-66 ; 127 Stat. 950) to the military service academies.\n\n\t\t114th Congress (2015-2016)\n\nJanuary 13, 2015 \u2014 S. 178 , the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015 was introduced in the Senate. Title V of this bill \"Military Sex Offender Reporting\" stipulates that the Secretary of Defense shall provide the Attorney General information about sex offenders in the military to be included in the National Sex Offender Registry and the Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Website. It became P.L. 114-22 on May 29, 2015.\nFebruary 3, 2015 \u2014 H.R. 677 , American Heroes COLA Act of 2015, was introduced in the House, passed on February 9, and the next day was received in the Senate, read twice, and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Section 6 proposed that veterans whose claims were being reviewed again in relation to a previously denied claim relating to military sexual trauma be given priority, among other claims.\nFebruary 12, 2015 \u2014 H.R. 956 , the Military Track, Register and Alert Communities Act of 2015 (Military TRAC Act) was introduced in the House and referred to the House Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on Military Personnel on November 23. This bill intended to require DOD to maintain a sex offender registry of individuals convicted of certain sex offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or of other military offenses appropriate for sex offender registration purposes.\nApril 13, 2015 \u2014 H.R. 1735 , the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, was introduced in the House. Subtitle D addressed military justice, including sexual assault and domestic violence prevention and response. \nApril 24, 2015 \u2014 H.R. 2029 , the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 was introduced in the House and later became P.L. 114-113 . Section 8057 specified that \"$25,000,000 shall be for continued implementation and expansion of the Sexual Assault Special Victims' Counsel Program.\"\nMay 14, 2015 \u2014 S. 1356 , the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 was introduced in the Senate and later became P.L. 114-92 on November 25, 2015. Subtitle D \"Military Justice, Including Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence Prevention and Response\" amended the Uniform Code of Military Justice, authorized Special Victims' Counsel for civilian DOD employees, required the DOD to develop a policy to standardize the training for Special Victims' Counsel, required the establishment of Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces within 90 days, required the development of a plan to improve prevention and response to sexual assaults of male members of the Armed Forces, required the establishment of a strategy to prevent retaliation against Armed Forces members who report or intervene on behalf of sexual assault victims, and authorized the President to modify Rule 304(c) of the Military Rules of Evidence to conform to the rules governing the admissibility of the corroboration of admissions and confessions in the trial of criminal cases in the U.S. district courts.\nJune 11, 2015 \u2014 S. 1558 , Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2016, was introduced in the Senate. The bill would have required specified O&M funds to be used for continued implementation and expansion of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program.\nJune 11, 2015 \u2014 S. 1567 , a bill to amend Title 10, United States Code, to provide for a review of the characterization or terms of discharge from the Armed Forces of individuals with mental health disorders alleged to affect terms of discharge, was introduced in the Senate. The bill proposed to address medical evidence reviews for former members applying for relief from the terms of their discharge due to military sexual trauma among other conditions. \nJune 11, 2015 \u2014 S.Amdt. 1578 to S.Amdt. 1463 in H.R. 1735 , National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, was proposed in the Senate and later considered and defeated on June 16. This bill was intended to reform procedures for determinations to proceed to trial by court-martial for certain offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It did not achieve 60 votes in the Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. The final vote was 50 - 49. \nApril 12, 2016 \u2014 H.R. 4909 , the NDAA for FY2017, was introduced in the House where it passed on May 18. On May 26, it was received in the Senate, read twice, and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 502.\nApril 18, 2016 \u2014 H.R. 4991 , the Prevent Retaliation and Open up Transparency to Expand Care for Troops (PROTECT) Act of 2016, was introduced in the House and later referred to the House Armed Services' Subcommittee on Military Personnel. The bill intended to amend the Uniform Code of Military Justice to establish the offense of retaliation with provisions that would permit any person intent on retaliating against anyone for reporting or planning to report a criminal offense to be punished as a court-martial may direct.\nMay 18, 2016 \u2014 S. 2943 , the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, was introduced in the Senate and became P.L. 114-328 on December 23. Subtitle D specified requirements for the review by a discharge review board of claims by former members asserting post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or traumatic brain injury (TBI) in connection with combat or sexual trauma. Subtitle E \"Military Justice and Legal Assistance Matters\" required an annual report on sexual assault and response efforts, required Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office to establish evaluation metrics and best practices in the prevention of and response to retaliation, and modified the definition of sexual harassment for the purposes of investigations of complaints of harassment by commanding officers. Title XXXV \"Maritime Matters\" established requirements for policies and training regarding sexual harassment and sexual assault prevention and response at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and required the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation to submit a report to Congress about the sexual harassment and sexual assault prevention and response program at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. Title LIV \"Court-Martial Jurisdiction\" specified the sexual offenses over which general courts-martial have exclusive jurisdiction. Title LX \"Punitive Articles\" created a new section of the Uniform Code of Military Justice addressing accountability for sexual misconduct committed by recruiters and trainers during the various phases within the recruiting and basic military training environments, revised the definition of ''sexual act'' with respect to the offenses of rape and sexual assault.\nMay 19, 2016 \u2014 H.R. 5293 , Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2017, was introduced in the House, passed on June 16, received in the Senate the next day, where it received a motion to proceed to consideration. The bill would have required O&M funds to be used for continued implementation and expansion of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program.\nMay 26, 2016 \u2014 S. 3000 , Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2017, was introduced in the Senate and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 500. The Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Department of Defense held several hearings prior from February-April. The bill would have required specified O&M funds to be used for continued implementation and expansion of the SAPR Program.\n\n\tSelected Resources\n\n\t\tGovernment Sources\n\n\t\t\tDepartment of Defense\n\nDOD Directive No. 6495.01. \"Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program,\" January 23, 2012, Incorporating Change 3, April 11, 2017, at http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/649501p.pdf\nDOD Directive No. 6495.02. \"Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program Procedures,\" March 28, 2013, Incorporating Change 3, May 24, 2017, at https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/649502p.pdf \nDOD Inspector General (IG). E valuation of the Military Criminal Investigative Organizations Sexual Assault Investigations, DODIG-2013-091, July 9, 2013, 104 p . at http://www.dodig.mil/reports.html/Article/1118941/evaluation-of-the-military-criminal-investigative-organizations-sexual-assault/ \nSexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) at https://www.sapr.mil/ \nIncludes the full text of DOD Annual Reports, FY2004 - FY2016, and reports on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the U.S. Military Service Academies, Academic Program Years (APY) 2005-2018.\n\n\t\t\t\tNon-DOD Reports\n\n\"Final 2014\u20132015 Academic Program Year Annual Report on Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault at the United States Merchant Marine Academy,\" Maritime Administration, undetermined date, at https://www.marad.dot.gov/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Final-2014-2015-SASH-Report.pdf \n\"Department of Transportation U.S. Merchant Marine Academy Culture Audit, Deliverable 4. Final Report,\" U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, December 2016, at https://cms.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/mission/civil-rights/263966/dot-usmma-report.pdf \n\"Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program,\" United States Coast Guard, LMI, December 2016, at https://media.defense.gov/2017/Mar/29/2001723560/-1/-1/0/CIM_1754_10E.PDF \n\"Preliminary 2015-2016 Academic Year Biennial Survey and Report on Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault at the United States Merchant Marine Academy,\" Maritime Administration, January 12, 2017, at https://www.marad.dot.gov/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Preliminary-2015-2016-SASH-Report.pdf \n\n\t\t\tGovernment Accountability Office (GAO)\n\nMilitary Justice: Oversight and Better Collaboration Needed for Sexual Assault Investigations and Adjudications , GAO-11-579, Jun 22, 2011, 42 p. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-579\nPreventing Sexual Harassment: DOD Needs Greater Leadership Commitment and an Oversight Framework , GAO-11-809, Sep 21, 2011, 47 p. http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/585344.pdf\nPrior GAO Work on DOD's Actions to Prevent and Respond to Sexual Assault in the Military , GAO-12-571R, Mar 30, 2012, 40 p. http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/589780.pdf\nDOD Has Taken Steps to Meet the Health Needs of Deployed Servicewomen, but Actions Are Needed to Enhance Care for Sexual Assault Victims, GAO-13-182, January 29, 2013, 40 p. http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/651624.pdf\nMilitary Personnel: Actions Needed to Address Sexual Assaults of Male Servicemembers, Report to the Committee on Armed Services , GAO-15-284, March 19, 2015, 86 p. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-284 \nSexual Assault: Actions Needed to Improve DOD's Prevention Strategy and to Help Ensure It Is Effectively Implemented, GAO-16-61, November 4, 2015, 59 p. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-61 \nDOD and Coast Guard: Actions Needed to Increase Oversight and Management Information on Hazing Incidents Involving Servicemembers, GAO-16-226, Feb 9, 2016, 74 p. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-226 \n\n\t\t\tSelected Articles, Studies and Reports\n\nThe following news sources are listed in chronological order to make it easier to follow the numerous incidents of wide-spread misconduct reported in the media. Military.com has ongoing news on military sexual assault at http://www.military.com/topics/sexual-assault . \n\n\t\t\t\t2012\n\nMontgomery, Nancy. \"Johnson Found Guilty of Last Two Counts; Awaits Sentencing.\" Stars and Stripes , June 13, 2012, at http://www.stripes.com/news/johnson-found-guilty-of-last-two-counts-awaits-sentencing-1.180204\nCarroll, Chris. \"Air Force has Identified 31 Alleged Victims in Lackland Sex Abuse Scandal,\" Stars and Stripes, June 28, 2012, at http://www.stripes.com/news/air-force-has-identified-31-alleged-victims-in-lackland-sex-abuse-scandal-1.181597\nDao, James. \"Instructor for Air Force Is Convicted in Sex Assaults,\" New York Times , July 20, 2012, at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/us/lackland-air-force-base-instructor-guilty-of-sex-assaults.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 \nBlansett, Susan and Hoffman, Michael. \"Sexual Assault Cases Flood Military Courts,\" Military.com, August 13, 2012, at http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/08/13/sex-assault-cases-flood-military-courts.html\n\n\t\t\t\t2013\n\nRisen, James. \"Honor Betrayed: Attacked at 19 by an Air Force Trainer, and Speaking Out,\" New York Times , February 26, 2013, at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/us/former-air-force-recruit-speaks-out-about-rape-by-her-sergeant-at-lackland.html?pagewanted=all\nMulrine, Anne. \"Seeking the Sex-Assault Solution,\" Air Force Magazine , April 2013, at http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2013/April%202013/0413solution.aspx\n\"5 Former Lackland Commanders Disciplined,\" Military.com, May 2, 2013, at http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/05/02/5-former-lackland-commanders-disciplined.html\nKime, Patricia. \"Lawmakers Act Fast with New Legislation on Military Sexual Assault.\" Army Times , May 7, 2013.\nShapira, Ian. \"July Trial Set for Jeffrey Krusinski, Air Force Officer Accused of Sexual Battery.\" Washington Post , May 9, 2013, at https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/july-trial-set-for-air-force-officer-accused-of-sexual-battery/2013/05/09/8a21eb92-b8d9-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_story.html?utm_term=.e0d4951e6573 \nSteinhauer, Jennifer. \"Lawmakers, at White House, Discuss Sex Abuse in Military.\" New York Times , May 9, 2013, at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/us/politics/lawmakers-huddle-at-white-house-on-sex-abuse-in-military.html?_r=0\nWhitlock, Craig. \"Pentagon Grapples with Sex Crimes by Military Recruiters,\" Washington Post , May 12, 2013, at http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-12/world/39210853_1_military-recruiters-sexual-abuse-army-reserve\nSisk, Richard. \"Assault Prevention NCO Investigated for Sex Crimes.\" Military.com, May 15, 2013, at http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/05/15/assault-prevention-nco-investigated-for-sex-crimes.html\nWhitlock, Craig. \"Some in Congress want Changes in Military Law as a Result of Sex Crimes,\" Washington Post , May 15, 2013, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/some-in-congress-want-changes-in-military-law-as-result-of-sex-crimes/2013/05/15/672a2a8a-bd8b-11e2-a31d-a41b2414d001_story.html\nSisk, Richard. \"Sex Assault Crisis Pushes Senate to Overhaul UCMJ,\" Military.com, May 16, 2013, at http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/05/16/sex-assault-crisis-pushes-senate-to-overhaul-ucmj.html\nTilghman, Andrew. \"Dempsey: DOD May Have Become 'Too Forgiving' of Sexual Assault,\" Army Times , May 17, 2013.\nBrady, Gen. Roger Brady (ret.). \"Commentary: Telling Truths about Sexual Assault is Risky,\" Air Force Times , May. 21, 2013.\nSalcedo, Michele. \"Senator: Fire Commanders Allowing Sex Assault,\" Army Times, May 26, 2013.\nTucker, Eric. \"More Details Released on Annapolis Sex Assault Investigation: Allegations Made Against Three Football Players,\" Navy Times , May 30, 2013.\nLardner, Richard. \"Brass Seeks to Temper Military Justice Overhaul,\" Associated Press, June 3, 2013, at http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/06/03/brass-seeks-to-temper-military-justice-overhaul.html\nCassata, Donna and Richard Lardner. \"Sexual Assaults Force Changes to Military Justice,\" Associated Press, June 4, 2013, at http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/06/04/sexual-assaults-force-changes-to-military-justice.html \nZengerle, Patricia. \"U.S. Lawmakers Act to Limit Military Authority in Sex Assault Cases,\" Reuters, June 5, 2013, at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/05/us-usa-military-sexassault-congress-idUSBRE9541IG20130605\nCassata, Donna and Richard Lardner. \" House OKs 2-Yr Jail Term for Military Sex Assault ,\" Associated Press, June 14, 2013, at http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/06/14/house-oks-2-year-jail-term-for-military-sex-assault.html\nMontgomery, Nancy. \" After 2 decades of sexual assault in military, no real change in message ,\" Stars and Stripes , July 7, 2013, at https://www.stripes.com/news/after-2-decades-of-sexual-assault-in-military-no-real-change-in-message-1.229091\nSteinhauer, Jennifer. \"Complex Fight in Senate over Curbing Military Sex Assaults,\" New York Times , June 14, 2013, at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/us/politics/in-senate-complex-fight-over-curbing-sexual-military-assaults.html?pagewanted=all\nDao, James. \"In Debate over Military Sexual Assault, Men Are Overlooked Victims,\" New York Times , June 23, 2013, at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/us/in-debate-over-military-sexual-assault-men-are-overlooked-victims.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0\nSisk, Richard. \"Military Tries to Sever Booze, Sex Assault Link,\" Military.com, July 8, 2013, at http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/07/08/military-tries-to-sever-booze-sex-assault-link.html \nWatson, Julie. \"Military Works to Change Culture to Combat Rape,\" Associated Press, July 15, 2013, at http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/07/15/military-works-to-change-culture-to-combat-rape.html\nOlson, Wyatt. \"IG Review Finds Deficiencies in Sex Assault Cases,\" Stars and Stripes, July 16, 2013, at http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/07/16/ig-review-finds-deficiencies-in-sex-assault-cases.html\nShanker, Thom. \"New Support for Military in Sex Cases,\" New York Times , July 24, 2013, at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/25/us/politics/new-support-for-military-in-sex-cases.html\nTaranto, James. \"A Strange Sort of Justice at West Point,\" The Wall Street Journal, July 26, 2013, at https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-strange-sort-of-justice-at-west-point-1376453937\nCassata, Donna, \"Senator Targets Military Law over Sexual Assault,\" Associated Press, July 29, 2013, at http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/07/29/senator-targets-military-law-over-sexual-assault.html?comp=7000023317843&rank=3\nGroer, Annie. \" Military brass claim progress in pursuing sexual assault cases ,\" Washington Post, August 1, 2013, at https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2013/08/01/military-brass-claim-progress-in-pursing-sexual-assault-cases/?utm_term=.72e55e7e218c \nJennifer Koons. \"Sexual Assault in the Military: Can the Pentagon stem the rise in incidents?\" CQ Researcher , vol. 23, no. 29 (A ugust 9, 2013 ), p p. 693-716 .\nLaird, Lorelei. \" Military lawyers confront changes as sexual assault becomes big news ,\" ABA (American Bar Association) Journal , September 2013, at http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/military_lawyers_confront_changes_as_sexual_assault_becomes_big_news/ \nJelinek, Pauline. \" Pentagon: Reports of Sexual Assault Up 46 Percent ,\" Associated Press, November 8, 2013, at http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/11/08/pentagon-reports-of-sexual-assault-up-46-percent.html\nMatthews, Michael F. \" The Untold Story of Military Sexual Assault ,\" The New York Times, November 24, 2013, at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/25/opinion/the-untold-story-of-military-sexual-assault.html \n\" Men Sexually Assaulted in the Military Speak Out ,\" Baltimore Sun, December 20, 2013, at http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/12/20/men-sexually-assaulted-in-the-military-speak-out.html\n\n\t\t\t\t2014\n\nKageyama, Yuri and Richard Lardner. \"Documents Reveal Chaotic Military Sex-Abuse Record,\" Associated Press, February 10, 2014, at http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/02/10/documents-reveal-chaotic-military-sex-abuse-record.html\nMontgomery, Nancy. \"AF Program Rare Bright Spot in Sex Assault Fight,\" Stars and Stripes , February 27, 2014, at http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/02/27/air-force-program-rare-bright-spot-in-sex-assault-fight.html\nCox, Matthew. \"Alcohol Policies Reviewed as Sex Assault Rises,\" Military.com, May 1, 2014, at http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/05/01/alcohol-policies-reviewed-as-sex-assault-rises.html\nBurns, Robert. \"Army Knocks 2-Star Down to 1-Star Rank,\" Associated Press, August 27, 2014, at http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/08/27/army-knocks-2-star-down-to-1-star-rank.html\nMilham, Matt. \"Army: It's Good News That Sexual Assault Reports Are Up,\" Stars and Stripes , September 26, 2014, at http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/09/26/army-its-good-news-that-sexual-assault-reports-are-up.html\nDraper, Robert. The Military's Rough Justice on Sexual Assault,\" New York Times , November 26, 2014, at https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/magazine/the-militarys-rough-justice-on-sexual-assault.html\nSisk, Richard. \"Sexual Assault Reports Increase 8%, Pentagon Cites Progress,\" Military.com, December 4, 2014, at http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/04/sexual-assault-reports-increase-8-pentagon-cites-progress.html\nBaldor, Lolita C. \"Male Military Sex Assault Victims Slow to Complain,\" Associated Press, December 9, 2014, at http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/09/male-military-sex-assault-victims-slow-to-complain.html\n\n\t\t\t\t2015\n\nRoulo, Claudette. \"Sexual Assault Rates Decrease at Military Service Academies,\" DOD News, Defense Media Activity, February 11, 2015, at http://archive.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=128158 \nPellerin, Cheryl. \"DOD Honors Sexual Assault Response Coordinators,\" DOD News, April 23, 2015, at https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/604510/ \nRowe, Major Derek. \"General courts-martial for sexual assault: How do they work?\" Air Force News , April 28, 2015, at http://www.af.mil/News/Commentaries/Display/Article/586763/general-courts-martial-for-sexual-assault-how-do-they-work/ \nSisk, Richard. \"Military Sexual Assault Reports Increased 11 Percent Last Year,\" Military.com, May 1, 2015, at http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/05/01/military-sexual-assault-reports-increased-11-percent-last-year.html \nJohnson, Lieutenant General Michelle D., U.S. Air Force Academy superintendent; Vice Admiral Walter E. \"Ted\" Carter Jr., superintendent, U.S. Naval Academy; Lieutenant General Robert L. Caslen, superintendent, U.S. Military Academy; Rear Admiral James A. Helis, superintendent, U.S. Merchant Marine Academy; Rear Admiral Sandra L. Stosz, superintendent, U.S. Coast Guard Academy. \"Lessons to Share: The five superintendents of federal service academies discuss how their institutions -- which faced scrutiny over sexual assault before many other colleges attracted such attention -- have responded to the issue,\" Inside Higher Ed, May 7, 2015, at https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2015/05/07/essay-how-federal-service-academics-prevent-and-punish-sexual-assault \nTilghman, Andrew. \"Military sexual assault claims: 1 in 20 lead to jail time,\" Military Times, May 13, 2015, at https://www.militarytimes.com/2015/05/13/military-sexual-assault-claims-1-in-20-lead-to-jail-time/ \nSchogol, Jeff. \"Defense seeks dismissal of sexual assault case transferred to Washington,\" Air Force Times, October 17, 2015, at https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2015/10/17/defense-seeks-dismissal-of-sexual-assault-case-transferred-to-washington/ \nWhitlock, Craig. \"In the war against sexual assault, the Army keeps shooting itself in the foot,\" Washington Post, December 19, 2015, at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/12/19/in-the-war-against-sexual-assault-the-army-keeps-shooting-itself-in-the-foot/?utm_term=.d856136e939b \nDefense Media Activity. \"Defense Department Proposes UCMJ Changes,\" DOD News, December 28, 2015, at https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/638108/defense-department-proposes-ucmj-changes/ \nLosey, Stephen. \"USAF launches new strategy to curb sexual assault,\" Air Force Times, December 30, 2015, at https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2015/12/30/usaf-launches-new-strategy-to-curb-sexual-assault/ \n\n\t\t\t\t2016\n\nKime, Patricia. \"Sexual assault reporting rises at U.S. service academies,\" Military Times , January 8, 2016, at https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2016/01/08/sexual-assault-reporting-rises-at-u-s-service-academies/ \nLarter, David B. \"Navy sex assault victims may be eligible for early separation,\" Navy Times, January 20, 2016, at https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2016/01/20/navy-sex-assault-victims-may-be-eligible-for-early-separation/ \nCox, John Woodrow. \"Why sex assault reports have spiked at the Naval Academy, West Point and the Air Force Academy, Washington Post , March 11, 2016, at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/03/11/why-sex-assault-reports-have-spiked-at-the-naval-academy-west-point-and-the-air-force-academy/?utm_term=.a5e15f2f16f1 \nWhitlock, Craig, Thomas Gibbons-Neff. \"Military bringing more charges against of\ufb01cers for sexual assault,\" Washington Post, March 20, 2016, at https://www.stripes.com/news/us/military-bringing-more-charges-against-of%EF%AC%81cers-for-sexual-assault-1.400140#.WeTFNOFRXUc \nLardner, Richard. \"Pentagon misled lawmakers on military sexual assault cases,\" Associated Press , April 18, 2016, at https://apnews.com/23aed8a571f64a9d9c81271f0c6ae2fa/pentagon-misled-lawmakers-military-sexual-assault-cases \nKheel, Rebecca. \"Senators ask Obama to investigate whether Pentagon misled Congress,\" The Hill, April 19, 2016, at http://thehill.com/policy/defense/276832-senators-ask-obama-to-investigate-pentagons-sexual-assault-comments \nSecretary of the Air Force Public Affairs. \"Air Force report on sexual assault highlights program's progress,\" Air Force News , May 05, 2016, at http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/752653/air-force-report-on-sexual-assault-highlights-programs-progress/ \nTilghman, Andrew. \"Military sex assault: Just 4 percent of complaints result in convictions,\" Military Times , May 5, 2016, at https://www.militarytimes.com/veterans/2016/05/05/military-sex-assault-just-4-percent-of-complaints-result-in-convictions/ \nMontgomery, Nancy. \"US Military Court Addresses 'Incapable of Consent' to Sex Issue,\" Stars and Stripes , May 18, 2016, at http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/05/18/us-military-court-addresses-incapable-of-consent-to-sex-issue.html \nLosey, Stephen. \"Military must do right by wrongly-discharged sexual assault victims, advocates say,\" Air Force Times , May 19, 2016, at https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2016/05/19/military-must-do-right-by-wrongly-discharged-sexual-assault-victims-advocates-say/ \nLyle, Amaani. \"DoD Safe Helpline Offers Specialized Support to Sexual Assault Victims,\" DOD News, July 15, 2016, at https://dod.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/841166/dod-safe-helpline-offers-specialized-support-to-sexual-assault-victims/ \nRein, Lisa. \"Merchant Marine Academy under fire for sexual assault allegations,\" Stars and Stripes, August 12, 2016, at https://www.stripes.com/news/us/merchant-marine-academy-under-fire-for-sexual-assault-allegations-1.423595 \nLyle, Amaani. \"DoD Unveils Plan to Broaden Sexual Assault Support to Men,\" DOD News, Defense Media Activity, December 15, 2016, at https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1030795/dod-unveils-plan-to-broaden-sexual-assault-support-to-men/ \n\n\t\t\tScholarly Journals, Reports and Studies (non-government)\n\nThe following sources are listed in alphabetical order by author.\nBurgess, Ann W., Donna M. Slattery, and Patricia A. Herlihy. \"Military Sexual Trauma: A Silent Syndrome.\" Journal of Psychosocial Nursing & Mental Health Services 51, no. 2 (2013): 20-6. \nD'Ambrosio-Woodward, Tricia. \"Military Sexual Assault: A Comparative Legal Analysis of the 2012 Department of Defense Report on Sexual Assault in the Military: What It Tells Us, What It Doesn't Tell Us, and How Inconsistent Statistic Gathering Inhibits Winning the 'Invisible War.'\" Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender & Society 29, no. 2 (2014): 173-211.\nFarris, Coreen, Terry L. Schell and Terri Tanielian. Physical and Psychological Health Following Military Sexual Assault: Recommendations for Care, Research, and Policy . Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2013. http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP382\nFirestone, Juanita M., J. M. Miller, and Richard Harris. \"Implications for Criminal Justice from the 2002 and 2006 Department of Defense Gender Relations and Sexual Harassment Surveys.\" American Journal of Criminal Justice : AJCJ 37, no. 3 (2012): 432-451. \nGibson, Carolyn J., Kristen E. Gray, Jodie G. Katon, Tracy L. Simpson, and Keren Lehavot. \"Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment, and Physical Victimization during Military Service across Age Cohorts of Women Veterans.\" Women's Health Issues 26, no. 2 (2016): 225-231. \nHarrell, Margaret C., Laura Werber, Marisa Adelson, Sarah J. Gaillot, Charlotte Lynch and Amanda Pomeroy. A Compendium of Sexual Assault Research . Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2009. http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR617\nHolland, Kathryn, Rabelo, Ver\u00f3nica, and Cortina, Lilia. Sexual Assault Training in the Military: Evaluating Efforts to End the 'Invisible War.' American Journal of Community Psychology 54, no. 3/4 (2014): 289-303. \nMorral, Andrew R., Kristie Gore, and Terry L. Schell. Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment in the U.S. Military, Volume 1. Design of the 2014 RAND Military Workplace Study . Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, National Defense Research Institute, 2014. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9841.html \nMorral, Andrew R., Kristie Gore, and Terry L. Schell. Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment in the U.S. military: Volume 2. Estimates for Department of Defense Service members from the 2014 RAND Military Workplace Study . Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, National Defense Research Institute, 2015. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR870z2-1.html \nO'Brien, Carol, Jessica Keith, and Lisa Shoemaker. \"Don't Tell: Military Culture and Male Rape.\" Psychological Services 12, no. 4 (2015): 357-365. \nStander, Valeria A. and Cynthia J. Thomsen. \"Sexual Harassment and Assault in the U.S. Military: A Review of Policy and Research Trends.\" AMSUS Military Medicine (Association of Military Surgeons of the United States) 181, no. 1S (2016): 20-27. \n\n\t\t\tHouse and Senate Hearings\n\nThis chronological list of hearings was compiled from Congress.gov and CQ.com.\nU.S. Congress, House Armed Services Committee, A Review of Sexual Misconduct by Basic Training Instructors at Lackland Air Force Base , 113 th Cong., 1 st sess., January 23, 2013, H.A.S.C. No. 113-2 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013). \nU.S. Congress, House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, Department of Defense Appropriations for 2014 , Part 1, 113th Cong., 1 st sess., February 26, 2013 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013). \nU.S. Congress, Senate Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Personnel, Testimony on Sexual Assault in the Military, 113 th Cong., 1 st sess., March 13, 2013, S. Hrg. 113-303 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013). \nU.S. Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2014 , 113th Cong., 1 st sess., April 17, 2013 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013). \nU.S. Congress, House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, Department of Defense Appropriations for 2014, Part 2 , 113th Cong., 1 st sess., April 24, 2013 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013). \nU.S. Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2014 , 113th Cong., 1 st sess., April 24, 2013 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013). \nU.S. Congress, House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, President Obama's Fiscal 2014 Budget Proposal for the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps , 113 th Cong., 1 st sess., May 7, 2013 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013). \nU.S. Congress, Senate Armed Services Committee, D epartment of Defense Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2014 and the Future Years Defense Program , 113 th Cong., 1 st sess., May 7, 2013 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013). \nU.S. Congress, House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, President Obama's Fiscal 2014 Budget Proposal for the U.S. Army , 113 th Cong., 1 st sess., May 8, 2013. (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013). \nU.S. Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, President Obama's Fiscal 2014 Budget Proposal for the U.S. Air Force , 113 th Cong., 1 st sess., May 8, 2013 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013). \nU.S. Congress, House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, President Obama's Fiscal 2014 Budget Proposal for the U.S. Air Force , 113 th Cong., 1 st sess., May 9, 2013 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013). \nU.S. Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2014 , 113th Cong., 1 st sess., May 22, 2013 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013). \nU.S. Congress, Senate Armed Services Committee, Pending Legislation Regarding Sexual Assaults in the Military , 113 th Cong., 1 st sess., June 4, 2013, S. Hrg. 113\u2013320 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013).\nU.S. Congress, Senate Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Personnel, Markup of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 , 113 th Cong., 1 st sess., June 11, 2013 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013).\nU.S. Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2014 , 113th Cong., 1 st sess., June 11, 2013 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013).\nU.S. Congress, House Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Military Personnel, Women in Service Review s , 113 th Cong., 1 st sess., July 24, 2013, H.A.S.C. No. 113\u201350 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013).\nU.S. Congress , Senate Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Personnel, The Relationships Between Military Sexual Assault, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Suicide, and on Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Treatment and Management of Victims of Sexual Trauma , 113 th Cong., 2 nd sess., February 26, 2014, S. Hrg. 113-480 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013) .\nU.S. Congress, Armed Services Committee , Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Department of Defense , 113 th Cong., 2 nd sess., March 6 , 2014 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014).\nU.S. Congress, House Armed Services Committee, Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Department of the Navy , 113 th Cong., 2 nd sess., March 12 , 2014 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014).\nU.S. Congress, House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, Department of Defense Appropriations for 2015, Part 1 , 113 th Cong., 2 nd sess., March 13, 2014 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014).\nU.S. Congress, House Armed Services Committee , Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Department of the Air Force , 113 th Cong ., 2 nd sess., March 14, 2014 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014).\nU.S. Congress, House Armed Services Committee , Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Department of the Army , 113 th Cong., 2 nd sess., March 25 , 2014 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014).\nU.S. Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense , Department of Defense Appropriations for 2015 , 113th Cong., 2 nd sess., March 26 , 2014 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014).\nU.S. Congress, House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee , Department of Defense Appropriations for 2015 , Part 2, 113 th Cong., 2 nd sess., April 2, 2014, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014).\nU.S. Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense , Department of Defense Appropriations for 2015 , 113th Cong., 2 nd sess., April 2 , 2014 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014).\nU.S. Congress, House Armed Services Committee , National Defense Priorities from the Members for the Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act , 113 th Cong ., 2 nd sess., April 9 , 2014 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014).\nU.S. Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2015 , 113th Cong., 2 nd sess., April 9, 2014 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014). \nU.S. Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense, Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2015 , 113th Cong., 2 nd sess., April 30, 2014 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014). \nU.S. Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense , Department of Defense Appropriations for 2015 , 113th Cong., 2 nd sess., June 18 , 2014 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014).\n\n\t\t\t\t114th Congress\n\nU.S. Congress, Senate Armed Services Committee , Department of Defense Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2016 and the Future Years Defense Program , Part 1 , 114th Cong., 1 st sess., March 3 , 10 , 12 , 18 , 19, 26, April 4, 30 , 2015 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2015).\nU.S. Congress, Senate Armed Services , Department of Defense Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2016 and the Future Years Defense Program , Part 7 Strategic Forces, 114 th Cong., 1 st sess., March 4, 25, April 15, 22, 29 , 2015 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2015).\nU.S. Congress, Senate Armed Services Committee, Department of Defense Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2016 and the Future Years Defense Program , Part 3 Readiness and Management Support, 114 th Cong., 1 st sess., March 11, 25, April 22, 2015 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2015).\nU.S. Congress, Senate Armed Services Committee, The Current State of Readiness of U.S. Forces in Review of the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2016 and the Future Years Defense Program , 114 th Cong., 1 st sess., March 25, 2015 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2015).\nU.S. Congress, Senate Armed Services Committee, Department of Defense Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2017 and the Future Years Defense Program , Part 1 , 114 th Cong., 2 nd sess., February 11, 23, March 3, 10, 15, 17, April 5, 7, 26, 2016 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2016).\nU.S. Congress, House Armed Services Committee, The Fiscal Year 2017 Na tional Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Department of Defense , 114 th Cong., 2 nd sess., March 22, 2016 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2016).\nU.S. Congress, Senate Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, The Current State of Research, Diagnosis, and Treatment for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury , 114 th Cong., 2 nd sess., April 20, 2016 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2016).\n\n\t\t\tHouse and Senate Reports\n\n\t\t\t\t113th Congress\n\nU.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 on H.R.1960 with Additional and Dissenting Views, 113 th Cong., 1 st sess., H. Rept. 113-102 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013).\nU.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2014 to Accompany H.R. 2397 together with Additional Views, 113 th Cong., 1 st sess., H. Rept. 113-113 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013).\nU.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Armed Services, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 to accompany S. 1197, 113 th Cong., 1 st sess., S. Rept. 113-44 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013).\nU.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2014 to accompany S.1429, 113 th Cong., 1 st sess., S. Rept. 113-85 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013).\nU.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, First Annual Report on the Activities of the Committee on Armed Services for the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress , 113 th Cong., 1 st sess., H. Rept. 113-309 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2013).\nU.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Howard P. \"Buck\" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 to accompany H.R.4435, 113 th Cong, 2 nd sess., H. Rept. 113-446 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014).\nU.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Howard P. \"Buck\" McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 supplemental report to accompany H.R.4435, 113 th Cong. 2 nd sess., H. Rept. 113-446 part 2 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014).\nU.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Armed Services, Carl Levin National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 to accompany S.2410, 113 th Cong, 2 nd sess., S. Rept. 113-176 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014).\nU.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2015 to accompany H.R.4870, 113 th Cong., 2 nd sess., H. Rept. 113-473 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014).\nU.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2015 to accompany H.R.4870, 113 th Cong., 2 nd sess., S. Rept. 113-211 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2014).\n\n\t\t\t\t114th Congress\n\nU.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Service, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 to accompany H.R.1735, 114 th Cong., 1 st sess., H. Rept. 114-102 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2015).\nU.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Armed Services, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 to accompany S.1376, 114 th Cong., 1 st sess., S. Rept. 114-49 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2015).\nU.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2016 to accompany H.R.2685, 114 th Cong., 1 st sess., H. Rept. 114-139 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2015).\nU.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2016 to accompany S.1558, 114 th Cong., 1 st sess., S. Rept. 114-63 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2015).\nU.S. Congress, House Conference Report, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 to accompany H.R.1735, 114 th Cong., 1 st sess., H. Rept. 114-270 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2015).\nU.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 on H.R.4909, 114 th Cong., 2 nd sess., H. Rept. 114-537 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2016).\nU.S. Congress, Committee on Armed Services, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 to accompany S.2943, 114 th Cong, 2 nd sess., S. Rept. 114-255 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2016).\nU.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2017 to accompany H.R.5293, 114 th Cong., 2 nd sess., H. Rept. 114-577 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2016).\nU.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2017 to accompany S.3000, 114 th Cong., 2 nd sess., S. Rept. 114-263 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2016).\nU.S. Congress, House Conference Report, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 to accompany S. 2943, 114 th Cong, 2 nd sess., H. Rept. 114-840 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2016).", "source": "gov_report_summ", "evaluation": "rouge"}
{"instructions": ["Please help me summarize this government report."], "outputs": ["The Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) is a federal workers' compensation program that covers certain private-sector maritime workers. Firms that employ these workers are required to purchase workers' compensation or self-insure and are responsible for providing medical and disability benefits to covered workers who are injured or become ill on the job and survivors benefits to the families of covered workers who die on the job. The LHWCA is administered by the Department of Labor (DOL), and all benefit costs are paid by employers and their insurance carriers. In 2016, more than $1.4 billion in LHWCA benefits were paid to beneficiaries.\nCongress has extended the LHWCA provisions to cover workers outside of the maritime industry, such as overseas government contractors and civilian employees of military post exchanges. As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), persons who repair recreational vessels of any size were added to the LHWCA exemption list. In 2011, the DOL implemented this provision; since then, those regulations have proven controversial and numerous bills have been introduced to modify the regulatory definition to increase the number of workers exempted from the LHWCA.\nThe LHWCA pays for all medical care associated with a covered injury or illness. Disability benefits are based on a worker's pre-injury wage, and, unlike comparable state workers' compensation benefits, are adjusted annually to reflect national wage growth."], "input": "\tIntroduction\n\nThe Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) requires that private-sector firms provide workers' compensation coverage for their employees engaged in longshore, harbor, or other maritime occupations on or adjacent to the navigable waters of the United States. Although the LHWCA program is administered by the Department of Labor (DOL), most benefits are paid either through private insurers or self-insured firms.\nThe LHWCA is a workers' compensation system and not a federal benefits program. Like other workers' compensation systems in the United States, the LHWCA ensures that all covered workers are provided medical and disability benefits in the event they are injured or become ill in the course of their employment, and it provides benefits to the survivors of covered workers who die on the job. In 2016, the LHWCA paid approximately $1.41 billion in cash and medical benefits to injured workers and the families of deceased workers.\n\n\tWorkers' Compensation in the United States\n\nNearly all private- and public-sector workers in the United States are covered by some form of workers' compensation. The federal government has a limited role in workers' compensation and administers workers' compensation programs only for federal employees and several classes of private-sector workers, including longshore and harbor workers. For most occupations, workers' compensation is mandated by state laws and administered by state agencies.\nThere is no federal mandate that states provide workers' compensation. However, every state and the District of Columbia has a workers' compensation system. There are no federal standards for state workers' compensation systems. However, all U.S. workers' compensation systems provide for limited wage replacement and full medical benefits for workers who are injured or become ill as a result of their work and survivors benefits to the families of workers who die on the job.\nWorkers' compensation in the United States is a no-fault system that pays workers for employment-related injuries or illnesses without considering the culpability of any one party. In exchange for this no-fault protection and the guarantee of benefits in the event of an employment-related injury, illness, or death, workers give up their rights to bring actions against employers in the civil court system and give up their rights to seek damages for injuries and illnesses, including pain and suffering, outside of those provided by the workers' compensation laws. Workers' compensation is mandatory in all states and the District of Columbia, with the exception of Texas. In Texas, employers may, under certain conditions, opt out of the workers' compensation system, but in doing so subject themselves to civil actions brought by injured employees.\n\n\tHistory of the LHWCA\n\nPrior to the enactment of the LHWCA in 1927, longshore and harbor workers were not covered by any workers' compensation system. Although persons who worked entirely on land were covered by workers' compensation laws in those states that enacted such laws, pursuant to the Supreme Court's 1917 decision in Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen , state workers' compensation systems did not have jurisdiction over persons working on the \"navigable waters\" of the United States because the Constitution granted the authority over \"matters of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction\" to the federal government. The LHWCA created a federal workers' compensation program to cover these workers. In 1972, the LHWCA zone of coverage was extended to include areas adjacent to navigable waters that are used for loading, unloading, repairing, or building vessels.\n\n\tFirms and Workers Covered by the LHWCA\n\n\t\tCovered Firms\n\nThe LHWCA provisions apply to any private firm with any covered employees who work, full- or part-time, on the navigable waters of the United States, including in any of the following adjoining areas: piers; wharves; dry docks; terminals; building ways; marine railways; or other areas customarily used in the loading, unloading, repairing, or building of vessels.\n\n\t\tCovered Workers\n\nWith the exception of workers excluded by statute (listed below), the LHWCA covers any maritime employee of a covered firm, including longshore workers (those who load and unload ships) and harbor workers (i.e., ship repairmen, ship builders, and ship breakers).\n\n\t\t\tWorkers Excluded by Statute\n\nSections 2(3) and 3(b) of the LHWCA exclude the following workers from coverage:\nWorkers covered by a state workers' compensation law, including employees exclusively engaged in clerical, secretarial, security, or data processing work; persons employed by a club, camp, recreational operation, museum, or retail outlet; marina employees not engaged in the construction, replacement, or expansion of the marina; suppliers, transporters, and vendors doing business temporarily at the site of a covered employer; aquaculture workers; and employees who build any recreational vessel under 65 feet in length, or repair any recreational vessel, or dismantle any part of a recreational vessel in connection with the repair of the vessel. Workers, whether covered or not covered by a state workers' compensation law, including masters and crew members of vessels; persons engaged by the master of a vessel to unload any vessel under 18 tons net; and employees of the federal government, or any state, local, or foreign government or any subdivision of such a government.\n\n\t\t\t2009 Amendment to the LHWCA\n\nSection 803 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) modified one of the excluded classes of workers under the LHWCA by adding additional exclusions for persons who work on recreational vessels over 65 feet in length. Prior to the amendment, Section 2(3)(F) of the LHWCA read as follows:\n(3) The term \"employee\" means\u2026but such term does not include\u2026\n(F) individuals employed to build, repair, or dismantle any recreational vessel under sixty-five feet in length.\nThis section, as amended, reads as follows (with additions in italics):\n(3) The term \"employee\" means\u2026but such term does not include\u2026\n(F) individuals employed to build any recreational vessel under sixty-five feet in length, or individuals employed to repair any recreational vessel, or to dismantle any part of a recreational vessel in connection with the repair of such vessel.\nBy granting an exemption from the LHWCA to persons engaged in the repair of any recreation vessel, regardless of its size, this amendment limits the scope of the LHWCA and increases the types of workers excluded from coverage.\n\n\t\t\t2011 DOL Regulations Defining Recreational Vessel\n\nIn 2011, the DOL promulgated implementing regulations for the new recreational vessel provision provided by Section 803 of ARRA. These regulations provided definitions of recreational vessel for the purposes of the determination of LHWCA coverage. These definitions are based on the classification of vessels used by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and provided in statute and regulation. \n\n\t\t\t\tGeneral Definition\n\nSpecifically, under these current DOL regulations, a vessel is considered a recreational vessel if the vessel is\nbeing manufactured or operated mainly for pleasure or leased, rented, or chartered to another person for his or her pleasure.\n\n\t\t\t\tDefinition for Vessel Being Built or Repaired Under Warranty\n\nIn addition, for a vessel being built or repaired under warranty by its manufacturer or builder, the vessel is considered a recreational vessel if it appears based on its design and construction to be intended for recreational uses. The manufacturer or builder bears the burden under this regulation to establish that the vessel is a recreational vessel. \n\n\t\t\t\tDefinition for Vessel Being Repaired or Dismantled\n\nFor a vessel being repaired, dismantled for repair, or dismantled at the end of its life (ship breaking), the vessel is not considered a recreational vessel if it was operating, more than infrequently, in one of the following categories provided in the U.S. Code :\n\"passenger vessel\" (46 U.S.C. \u00a72101(22)); \"small passenger vessel\" (46 U.S.C. \u00a72101(35)); \"uninspected passenger vessel\" (46 U.S.C. \u00a72101(42)); vessel routinely engaged in \"commercial service\" (46 U.S.C. \u00a72101(5)); or vessel that routinely carries \"passengers for hire\" (46 U.S.C. \u00a72101(21a)). \nA vessel being repaired, dismantled for repair, or dismantled at the end of its life is considered a recreational vessel if the vessel is a public vessel owned, or bareboat chartered, by the federal government or a state or local government and shares elements of design and construction with traditional recreational vessels and is not used for military or commercial purposes. \n\n\t\t\tLegislation to Change the DOL's Definition of Recreational Vessel\n\nSince the promulgation of the DOL's 2011 rules providing regulatory definitions of recreational vessels for the purposes of the LHWCA, numerous bills have been introduced that would, if enacted, remove the existing regulatory definitions for a vessel being repaired, dismantled for repair, or dismantled at the end of its life so that the USCG categories of vessels provided in Section 2101 of Title 46 of the United States Code would no longer be used in the classification of such a vessel under the LHWCA. This legislation would expand the types of recreational vessels. Because persons who work on recreational vessels are not covered by the LHWCA, the legislation would allow employers to purchase workers' compensation for these workers under state laws rather than the LHWCA, which, due to the more generous benefits frequently offered by the LHWCA and the limited number of providers, may be more expensive. \nIn the 115 th Congress, Section 3509 of H.R. 2810 , the National Defense Authorization Act for 2018 (NDAA), as initially passed by the House of Representatives on July 14, 2017, contained this legislative provision. This provision was not included in the Senate version of the bill nor in the final NDAA enacted into law. \n\n\t\t\tExtensions of Coverage Under the LHWCA\n\nThe LHWCA has been amended four times to extend coverage to occupations outside the original scope of the law. In 1928, coverage was extended to employees of the District of Columbia . The provision was repealed, effective for all injuries occurring on or after July 26, 1982, with the enactment by the District of Columbia government of the District of Columbia Workers' Compensation Act of 1982. Benefits for injuries that occurred prior to July 26, 1982, continue to be paid under the LHWCA.\nCoverage was extended to overse a s military and public works contractors in 1941 with the enactment of the Defense Base Act. In 1952, coverage was extended to civilian employees of nonappropriated fund instrumentalities of the armed forces , such as service clubs and post exchanges. Coverage was extended in 1953 to employees working on the Outer Continental Shelf in the exploration and the development of natural resources , such as workers on offshore oil platforms.\n\n\tInsurance and Financing\n\nEmployers required by the LHWCA to provide workers' compensation coverage to their employees may either purchase private insurance or self-insure. The DOL is responsible for authorizing insurance carriers to provide coverage under the LHWCA program and for authorizing companies to self-insure. However, the DOL does not set or regulate insurance premiums. These insurance arrangements are the primary means of providing LHWCA benefits to injured, sick, and deceased workers and their families. General revenue is not used to pay any LHWCA benefits.\n\n\t\tSpecial Fund\n\nThe DOL operates the Special Fund to provide LHWCA benefits in cases in which the responsible employer or insurance carrier cannot pay or in which benefits must be paid for a second injury under Section 8(f) of the LHWCA. The Special Fund is financed through an annual assessment charged to employers and insurance carriers based on the previous year's claims, payments required when an employee dies without any survivors, disability payments due to an employee without survivors after his or her death, and penalties and fines assessed for noncompliance with LHWCA program rules.\n\n\t\tAdministrative Costs\n\nThe administrative costs associated with the LHWCA are largely provided by general revenue. General revenue is used to pay for most oversight functions associated with the LHWCA and the processing of LHWCA claims. General revenue is also used to pay legal and investigative costs associated with the DOL Office of the Solicitor and Office of the Inspector General. Revenue from the Special Fund is used to finance oversight activities related to the Special Fund and the program's vocational rehabilitation activities. In 2016, total administrative costs associated with the LHWCA were approximately $15.8 million, of which $13.6 million, or 86%, was paid by general revenue and $2.2 million, or 14%, was paid by the Special Fund.\n\n\tLHWCA Benefits\n\nThe LHWCA provides medical benefits for covered injuries and illnesses and disability benefits to partially cover wages lost due to covered injuries or illnesses, and it provides survivors benefits to the families of workers who die on the job.\n\n\t\tMedical Benefits\n\nThe LHWCA provides medical benefits to fully cover the cost of any medical treatment associated with a covered injury or illness. These medical benefits are provided without any deductibles, copayments, or costs paid by the injured worker. Prescription drugs and medical procedures are fully covered, as are costs associated with travelling to and from medical appointments. A covered worker may select his or her own treating physician, provided the physician has not been debarred from the LHWCA program for violating program rules.\n\n\t\tVocational Rehabilitation\n\nCovered workers are entitled to vocational rehabilitation services provided under the LHWCA. Vocational rehabilitation services are designed to assist the covered worker in returning to employment. There is no cost to the covered worker for vocational rehabilitation and workers actively participating in a rehabilitation program are entitled to an additional benefit of $25 per week. All costs associated with vocational rehabilitation under the LHWCA are paid out of the Special Fund. Vocational rehabilitation services may be provided by public or private rehabilitation agencies.\n\n\t\tDisability Benefits\n\nThe LHWCA provides disability benefits to covered workers to partially cover wages lost due to the inability to work because of a covered injury or illness. The amount of disability benefits is based on the worker's pre-disability wage, subject to maximum and minimum benefits based on the National Average Weekly Wage (NAWW) as determined by the DOL. The NAWW is updated October 1 of each year and is based on average wages across the United States for the three calendar quarters ending on June 30 of that year. The minimum weekly benefit that can be paid to a covered employee is equal to 50% of the NAWW and the maximum weekly benefit that can be paid is equal to 200% of the NAWW.\nDisability benefits under the LHWCA, like all workers' compensation benefits, are not subject to federal income taxes. Unlike most state workers' compensation benefits, however, LHWCA benefits are adjusted based on wage inflation rather than price inflation. Benefits are adjusted annually each October 1 to reflect the change in the NAWW from the previous year, up to a maximum increase of 5%. \n\n\t\t\tTotal Disability Benefits\n\nThe LHWCA provides benefits in cases of total disability. Under the LHWCA, a worker is considered totally disabled if he or she is unable to earn his or her pre-injury wage because of a covered injury or illness. In addition, a worker is also considered totally disabled if he or she loses both hands, arms, feet, legs, or eyes, or any two of these body systems, such as the loss of one arm and one leg. Total disability benefits under the LHWCA are equal to two-thirds of the covered worker's wage at the time of the injury or illness. Total disability benefits continue until the worker is no longer totally disabled or dies.\n\n\t\t\tPartial Disability Benefits\n\nIf a covered worker is able to partially return to work or return to work at a wage level less than his or her wage at the time of injury, then he or she is considered partially disabled. In cases of temporary partial disability, the LHWCA benefit is equal to two-thirds of the difference between the workers' pre-injury wage and his or her current earning capacity or actual earnings.\n\n\t\t\tPermanent Partial Disability Benefits\n\nSection 8(c) of the LHWCA provides a schedule of benefits to be paid in cases of permanent partial disability (PPD), such as the loss of a limb. The benefit schedule provides the number of weeks of compensation, at two-thirds of the pre-injury wage, for each type of PPD. For example, the LHWCA schedule provides that a worker who loses an arm is entitled to 312 weeks of compensation. Benefits in cases not listed on the schedule are paid at two-thirds of the difference between the pre-injury wage and current earning capacity for the duration of the disability. Schedule benefits for PPD are paid regardless of the current work status or earnings capacity of the employee. Thus, an employee with a PPD can fully return to work and earn his or her wage in addition to the PPD compensation. A copy of the LHWCA PPD schedule can be found in the Appendix to this report. \n\n\t\t\tDisability After Retirement\n\nIf a worker has an illness that was caused by his or her covered employment but did not manifest itself until after his or her retirement, then he or she is entitled to disability benefits equal to two-thirds of the NAWW multiplied by the percentage of his or her impairment. The percentage of impairment is determined using the current edition of the American Medical Association's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides ), or another professionally recognized source if the condition is not listed in the AMA Guides.\n\n\t\tSurvivors Benefits\n\nThe LHWCA provides cash benefits to the surviving spouses and minor children of workers killed on the job. Benefits for a surviving spouse end when the spouse remarries or dies and benefits for surviving children continue until the children reach the age of 18, age 23 if a full-time student, or for the life a child with a disability.\nA surviving spouse with no eligible children is entitled to one-half of the deceased worker's wage at the time of death under the LHWCA. A surviving spouse with one or more eligible children is entitled to two-thirds of the deceased worker's wage at the time of death. Once all children become ineligible for benefits because of their ages, the surviving spouse's benefit is reduced to the level of a spouse without any eligible children.\nIf an eligible spouse becomes ineligible for benefits because of death or remarriage, or if there is no surviving spouse, benefits are still paid to any surviving children. Under the LHWCA, a single surviving eligible child is entitled to one-half of the deceased worker's wage at the time of death, and two or more surviving children are eligible for a combined two-thirds of the wage at the time of death.\nThe survivors of a covered worker killed on the job are entitled under the LHWCA to a cash payment to provide for the burial and funeral of the deceased. The burial and funeral allowance is capped by Section 9(a) of the LHWCA at $3,000, and this cap not adjusted to reflect changes in prices or wages.\nIf a covered worker who is receiving scheduled PPD benefits dies of a cause unrelated to his or her illness or injury, then the balance of any remaining PPD benefits is paid to his or her survivors. If a covered worker who dies on the job leaves no survivors, his or her employer or the employer's insurance carrier is required to pay $5,000 into the Special Fund.\n\n\tLHWCA Claims Process\n\nAlthough the responsibility for the payment of benefits under the LHWCA rests with the employer or the employer's insurance company, decisions on benefit eligibility and the amount of benefits are made by the DOL. Upon the report of an injury, illness, or death, the LHWCA claims process begins. If the employer or insurance carrier does not controvert the claim, then arrangements are made by the DOL for the claim to be paid.\nIf, however, the employer controverts any part of the claim, then the DOL sets up an informal conference, either in person or by phone, between the employer or insurance carrier and worker with the goal of resolving any disputes over the claim. If this informal conference fails to resolve all outstanding disputes, then a formal hearing before a DOL administrative law judge (ALJ) is scheduled. If the employer or insurance carrier or the worker is dissatisfied with the decision of the ALJ, then this decision may be appealed to the Benefits Review Board (BRB). The BRB is made up of five members appointed by the Secretary of Labor. Either party dissatisfied with the decision of the BRB may file a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the injury occurred praying that the BRB's decision be set aside or modified. \nIf an employer or insurance carrier fails to pay compensation in accordance with a final decision on a claim, the covered worker or the DOL may request that the U.S. District Court order that payment be made.\n\n\t\tAppendix. Benefits Schedule for LHWCA PPD", "source": "gov_report_summ", "evaluation": "rouge"}
{"instructions": ["Please help me summarize this government report."], "outputs": ["The United States Fire Administration (USFA)\u2014which includes the National Fire Academy (NFA)\u2014is currently housed within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The objective of the USFA is to significantly reduce the nation's loss of life from fire, while also achieving a reduction in property loss and nonfatal injury due to fire.\nThe Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6) provided $45.679 million for USFA, including $1.5 million in the FEMA Procurement, Construction, and Improvements account for the National Emergency Training Center. For FY2020, the Administration requested $46.605 million, which includes $1.5 million transferred from the Procurement, Construction, and Improvements account for NETC campus renovations. The budget proposal would be a $1 million increase over the FY2019 level; the increase would fund further improvements to NETC facilities. The budget proposal does not include funding for State Fire Training Assistance.\nOn January 3, 2018, the President signed the United States Fire Administration, AFG, and SAFER Program Reauthorization Act of 2017 (P.L. 115-98). P.L. 115-98 extends the USFA authorization through FY2023. The authorization levels are the same as in the previous authorization: $76,490,890 each year for FY2017 through FY2023.\nMeanwhile, concerns over the federal budget deficit could impact future funding levels for the USFA. Debate over the USFA budget has focused on whether the USFA is receiving an appropriate level of funding to accomplish its mission, given that appropriations for USFA have consistently been well below the agency's authorized level. Additionally, an ongoing issue is the viability and status of the USFA and the National Fire Academy within the Department of Homeland Security."], "input": "\tBackground\n\nThe United States Fire Administration (USFA) is currently an entity within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Its mission is to provide leadership, coordination, and support for the nation's fire prevention and control, fire training and education, and emergency medical services activities, and to prepare first responders and health care leaders to react to hazard and terrorism emergencies of all kinds. One of USFA's key objectives is to significantly reduce the nation's loss of life from fire, while also achieving a reduction in property loss and nonfatal injury due to fire. Although fire loss has improved significantly over the past 25 years, the fire problem in the United States remains serious. The United States still has one of the highest fire death rates in the industrialized world. According to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), in 2015 there were 1,345,500 total fires reported, 3,280 civilian fire deaths, 15,700 civilian fire injuries, and an estimated $14.3 billion in direct property loss. There were 69 on-duty firefighter deaths in 2016.\nThe genesis of USFA and FEMA's fire prevention and control activities can be found in the landmark 1973 report of the National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control, entitled America Burning . The commission recommended the creation of a federal fire agency which would provide support to state and local governments and private fire organizations in their efforts to reduce fire deaths, injuries, and property loss. The commission recommended that this new agency be placed within the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Congress instead opted to place the agency in the Department of Commerce, and with the passage of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 ( P.L. 93-498 ), the National Fire Prevention and Control Administration (NFPCA) was established. In 1978, Congress changed the name of NFPCA to USFA ( P.L. 95-422 ), and in 1979, President Carter's Reorganization Plan No. 3 placed the USFA within the newly created FEMA. Also in 1979, the National Fire Academy (NFA) in Emmitsburg, MD, was opened, offering courses and training to fire service personnel and other persons engaged in fire prevention and control.\nDuring the early 1980s, the Reagan Administration proposed the elimination of the USFA (while preserving the Fire Academy). Although Congress did not allow the termination of the USFA, the agency suffered severe staff reductions and the Fire Academy was separated from the USFA and housed organizationally with other FEMA emergency training programs. In 1991, the NFA was subsequently reorganized back into the USFA, where it remains today.\nCurrently, the USFA is located on the grounds of the National Emergency Training Center in Emmitsburg, MD. USFA programs include the following:\nData Collection \u2014USFA's National Fire Data Center (NFDC) administers a national system (the National Fire Incident Reporting System or NFIRS) used for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating data and information on fire and other emergency incidents to state and local governments and the fire community. The NFDC provides a national analysis of the fire problem, identifying problem areas for which prevention and mitigation strategies are needed.\nPublic Education and Awareness \u2014Through partnerships and special initiatives, USFA involves the fire service, the media, other federal agencies, and safety interest groups in the development and delivery of fire safety awareness and education programs. These programs are targeted at those groups most vulnerable to the hazards of fire, including the young, elderly, and disabled.\nTraining \u2014USFA's National Fire Academy (NFA) offers educational opportunities for the advanced professional development of the mid-level and senior fire/EMS officers and allied professionals involved in fire prevention and life safety activities. The academy develops and delivers educational and training programs with a national focus that supplement and support state and local fire service training. The NFA also offers training to support the National Incident Management System Integration Center (NIC) and nationwide implementation of the National Incident Management System (NIMS).\nResearch and Technology \u2014Through research, testing, and evaluation, USFA works with public and private entities to promote and improve fire and life safety. Research and special studies are conducted on fire detection, suppression, and notification systems, as well as issues related to firefighter and emergency responder health and safety. Research results are published and made available to the public free of charge through the USFA Publications Center.\nIn fulfilling its mission, the USFA uses the assets of the National Fire Academy, the National Emergency Training Center (NETC) Facilities and Support Services, and the National Fire Programs Division.\nOn May 18, 2017, President Trump announced his intention to appoint Chief G. Keith Bryant as the USFA Administrator. G. Keith Bryant was sworn in as the U.S. Fire Administrator on August 4, 2017.\n\n\tBudget\n\nThe USFA receives its annual appropriation through the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Homeland Security. Table 1 shows recent and proposed appropriated funding for USFA.\n\n\t\tAppropriations\n\nBeginning in FY2004, the USFA was funded through the Preparedness, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery (PMRR) account within the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security. On July 13, 2005, then-DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff announced a restructuring of DHS, effective October 1, 2005. USFA was removed from the PMRR account and received a separate appropriation (its own line item) under the new DHS Directorate for Preparedness. The FY2007 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill ( P.L. 109-295 ) transferred the USFA back to the Federal Emergency Management Agency within DHS. \n\n\t\t\tFY2017\n\nThe Administration's FY2017 budget proposed $42.3 million for USFA, a 3.8% decrease from the FY2016 level. The request included $1.5 million for facilities improvement under the Procurement, Construction, and Improvements account. The budget proposal included $500,000 for distance learning capability and reductions of $1 million each for NFIRS and state fire training grants. The budget request would also transfer the stand-alone USFA budget account into the Preparedness and Protection activity under FEMA's broader Federal Assistance account. \nOn May 26, 2016, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved S. 3001 , the Department of Homeland Security Act, 2017. The Senate bill would provide $44 million for USFA, which matches the FY2016 level and is $1.688 million above the request. In the accompanying report ( S.Rept. 114-68 ), the committee stated that the increase over the Administration request should allow for the continued development of NFIRS and support for the National Fallen Firefighters Memorial. The committee maintained a separate budget account for USFA and did not transfer the USFA budget account to the Federal Assistance account as proposed in the Administration budget request.\nOn June 22, 2016, the House Appropriations Committee approved its version of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2017. Unlike the Senate, the House committee transferred the USFA budget account into a broader \"Federal Assistance\" account in FEMA. The bill provided $42.5 million for USFA under the Federal Assistance account and $1.5 million under Procurement, Construction, and Improvements for National Fire Academy facility costs.\nThe Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 ( P.L. 115-31 ) funded USFA at a total level of $44 million in FY2017. This consisted of $42.5 million under Education, Training, and Exercises in the Federal Assistance account, and $1.5 million under the Procurement, Construction, and Improvements account.\n\n\t\t\tFY2018\n\nFor FY2018, the Administration requested $43.41 million for USFA, slightly below the FY2017 level of $44 million. The FY2018 level consists of $41.913 million under Education, Training, and Exercises in the Federal Assistance account, and $1.497 million under the Procurement, Construction, and Improvements account. According to the FY2018 budget proposal, the request reflects a $1 million reduction to the State Fire Training Assistance grants.\nOn July 18, 2017, the House Appropriations Committee approved the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2018 ( H.R. 3355 ; H.Rept. 115-239 ). The bill provided the same level as the Administration request: $41.913 million under Education, Training, and Exercises in the Federal Assistance account, and $1.497 million under the Procurement, Construction, and Improvements account.\nOn September 14, 2017, the House passed H.R. 3354 , a FY2018 omnibus appropriations bill that includes funding for USFA. During floor consideration, the House adopted an amendment offered by Representative Pascrell that added $1 million for USFA's State Fire Training Assistance grants, thereby restoring the Administration's proposed reduction. H.R. 3354 would provide a total of $44.41 million for USFA.\nThe Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 ( P.L. 115-141 ) provided $44.397 million for USFA. This total included $1.497 million in the FEMA Procurement, Construction, and Improvements account for the National Emergency Training Center. State Fire Training Assistance grants continued to be funded by USFA.\n\n\t\t\tFY2019\n\nFor FY2019, the Administration requested $44.993 million for USFA. The FY2019 level consisted of $43.493 million under Education, Training, and Exercises in the Federal Assistance account, and $1.5 million for annual capital improvement of the National Emergency Training Center under the Procurement, Construction, and Improvements account.\nOn June 21, 2018, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved S. 3109 , the Department of Homeland Security Act, 2019 ( S.Rept. 115-283 ). The Senate bill would provide $44 million to USFA in the Federal Assistance account, $507,000 above the budget request, to ensure the National Fire Academy can fulfill its mission of providing training and professional development without reducing its ability to carry out other important responsibilities. The bill report directed FEMA to continue its traditional funding for the congressionally mandated National Fallen Firefighters Memorial. S. 3109 would also provide $1.5 million for annual capital improvement of the National Emergency Training Center under the Procurement, Construction, and Improvements account.\nOn July 25, 2018, the House Appropriations Committee approved its version of the FY2019 Homeland Security bill. Identical to the Administration's budget request, the House bill would provide $43.493 million under Education, Training, and Exercises in the Federal Assistance account, and $1.5 million under the Procurement, Construction, and Improvements account.\nThe Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P.L. 116-6 ) provided $45.679 million for USFA, including $1.5 million in the FEMA Procurement, Construction, and Improvements account for the National Emergency Training Center.\n\n\t\t\tFY2020\n\nFor FY2020, the Administration requested $46.605 million for USFA, which includes $1.5 million transferred from the Procurement, Construction, and Improvements account for NETC campus renovations. The budget proposal would be a $1 million increase over the FY2019 level; the increase would fund further improvements to NETC facilities. The budget proposal does not include funding for State Fire Training Assistance.\n\n\t\tAuthorizations\n\nThe U.S. Fire Administration Reauthorization Act of 2003 ( P.L. 108-169 ) was signed into law on December 6, 2003. The act reauthorized the USFA through FY2008 at the following levels: $63 million for FY2005, $64.85 million for FY2006, $66.796 million for FY2007, and $68.8 million for FY2008. P.L. 108-169 also reestablished the presidentially appointed position of the U.S. Fire Administrator, which had been statutorily abolished by the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Additionally, the legislation directed the USFA to develop new firefighting technologies and standards in coordination with private sector standards groups and federal, state, and local agencies. P.L. 108-169 required that equipment purchased with fire grant money meet or exceed voluntary consensus standards when feasible.\nThe U.S. Fire Administration Reauthorization Act of 2008 was signed into law on October 8, 2008 ( P.L. 110-376 ). P.L. 110-376 authorized the USFA at $70 million for FY2009, $72.1 million for FY2010, $74.263 million for FY2011, and $76.491 million for FY2012. Provisions included authorizing National Fire Academy training program modifications and reports; directing the National Fire Academy to provide training on incidents occurring in the wildfire-urban interface, multijurisdictional fires, hazardous materials incidents, and advanced emergency medical services; authorizing USFA to enter into contracts with one or more nationally recognized third-party organizations to deliver training; a report on the feasibility of providing incident command training for fires at ports and in marine environments; national fire incident reporting system upgrades; sponsoring and disseminating research on fire prevention and control at the wildland-urban interface; encouraging adoption of national voluntary consensus standards for firefighter health and safety; establishing a state and local fire service position at the National Operations Center within DHS; providing coordination regarding fire prevention and control and emergency medical services; and expressing congressional support for USFA recommendations for adoption and education regarding sprinklers in commercial and residential buildings.\nOn January 2, 2013, the President signed P.L. 112-239 , the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act. Title XVIII, Subtitle B was the U.S. Fire Administration Reauthorization Act of 2012, which authorized USFA through FY2017. P.L. 112-239 included the following provisions:\nreauthorized USFA at an annual level of $76,490,890 for FY2013 through FY2017, and for each fiscal year sets aside $2,753,672 to be used to carry out Section 8(f) of the Fire Prevention and Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2207) related to evaluation of technology and development of standards; authorized the USFA Administrator to appoint a Deputy Administrator; authorized the Administrator to take such steps as the Administrator considers appropriate to educate the public and overcome public indifference as to fire, fire prevention, and individual preparedness; and removed the limitation on funding levels for updating the National Fire Incident Reporting System.\nIn the 115 th Congress, on July 12, 2017, the House Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space and Technology, held a hearing entitled U.S. Fire Administration and Fire Grant Programs Reauthorization: Examining Effectiveness and Priorities . Testimony was heard from the USFA acting administrator and from fire service organizations.\nOn December 15, 2017, H.R. 4661 , the United States Fire Administration, AFG, and SAFER Program Reauthorization Act of 2017, was introduced by Representative Comstock, which sought to reauthorize the USFA through FY2023. On December 18, 2017, the House passed H.R. 4661 by voice vote under suspension of the rules. On December 21, 2017, the Senate passed H.R. 4661 without amendment by unanimous consent.\nOn January 3, 2018, the President signed the United States Fire Administration, AFG, and SAFER Program Reauthorization Act of 2017 ( P.L. 115-98 ). P.L. 115-98 extends the USFA authorization through FY2023. The authorization levels are the same as in the previous authorization: $76,490,890 each year for FY2017 through FY2023, of which $2,753,672 each fiscal year is to be used to carry out Section 8(f) of the Fire Prevention and Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2207) related to evaluation of technology and development of standards. \n\n\tAssistance to Firefighters Program (FIRE Act Grants)\n\nThe Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) Program, also known as the FIRE Act grant program, was established by Title XVII of the FY2001 Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act ( P.L. 106-398 ). The program provides federal grants directly to local fire departments and unaffiliated Emergency Medical Services (EMS) organizations to help address a variety of equipment, training, and other firefighter-related and EMS needs. A related program is the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Firefighters (SAFER) program, which provides grants for hiring, recruiting, and retaining firefighters.\nSince its inception, the fire grant program has been administered by FEMA/USFA (FY2001-FY2003), the Office for Domestic Preparedness (FY2004), the Office of State and Local Government Coordination Preparedness (FY2005), and the Office of Grants and Training in the DHS Directorate for Preparedness (FY2006). The FY2007 DHS Appropriations Act ( P.L. 109-295 ) transferred USFA to FEMA and the fire and SAFER grants to the Grants Programs Directorate in FEMA. Congressional appropriations reports have consistently instructed DHS to maintain USFA involvement in the grant administration process for AFG and SAFER grants.\nIn September 2016, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled Fire Grants: FEMA Could Enhance Program Administration and Performance Assessment. Among its findings, GAO concluded that FEMA has not defined and documented USFA's specific role or responsibilities with the fire grants program, and that there is no formalized relationship or policy regarding how the two organizations' programs could work together. According to GAO\nAlthough a level of informal coordination exists between GPD [Grant Programs Directorate] and USFA, enhancing these efforts by using collaborative mechanisms that our work across the federal government has identified as key features and issues to consider during implementation\u2014such as clearly defining and agreeing upon USFA's role and responsibilities and documenting agreement regarding how they will be collaborating\u2014could help GPD further leverage USFA expertise and resources in support of the fire grants programs, which could also help GPD manage the integration of fire grants into broader national preparedness efforts.\nIn December 2016, the USFA signed an agreement with FEMA's Grant Programs Directorate to provide a framework for each entity's roles and responsibilities for improving the management of the fire grants.\n\n\tIssues in the 116th Congress\n\nConcerns over the federal budget deficit could impact future funding levels for the USFA. Debate over the USFA budget has focused on whether the USFA is receiving an appropriate level of funding to accomplish its mission, given that appropriations for USFA have consistently been well below the agency's authorized level, and given that USFA's budget has remained flat over recent years.\nThe 116 th Congress may also consider whether the role of USFA might be expanded. For example, H.R. 1646 , the Helping Emergency Responders Overcome Act of 2019 (the HERO Act), introduced by Representative Bera on March 8, 2019, would direct USFA, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to develop and make publicly available resources that may be used by the federal government and other entities to educate mental health professionals about the mental health issues and challenges faced by firefighters and emergency medical services personnel.\nFinally, an ongoing issue is the viability and status of the USFA and National Fire Academy within the Department of Homeland Security. While supportive of the reorganization of FEMA into DHS, many in the fire service community have cautioned that USFA and NFA programs\u2014which address the day-to-day challenges faced by fire departments\u2014should not be overshadowed in an organization which focuses on homeland security and counterterrorism. Since the establishment of DHS in March 2003, fire service groups have opposed a number of actions DHS has taken with respect to the USFA and NFA. These included the abolishment of the presidentially appointed position of U.S. Fire Administrator (subsequently reestablished by enactment of the USFA Reauthorization Act of 2003); proposed cancellations of some NFA courses in 2003 due to an across-the-board FEMA budget cut (those NFA courses were subsequently restored after fire service protests); and the transfer of the fire grant program from the USFA to the DHS Office for Domestic Preparedness.", "source": "gov_report_summ", "evaluation": "rouge"}
{"instructions": ["Please help me summarize this government report."], "outputs": ["House rules govern the length of time legislative measures must be available to Members before being considered on the floor. For measures reported from committee, a draft of the committee report must have been available for 72 hours. Conference reports must also have been available for 72 hours and special rules for considering measures for one legislative day. Bills and joint resolutions that have not been reported by committee, and therefore are not accompanied by a written report, may also not be considered on the House floor unless the measure has been available for 72 hours. Proposed committee reports, unreported bills and joint resolutions, conference reports, and joint explanatory statements are considered available under these rules if they are publicly available in electronic form on a website designated by the Committee on House Administration for this purpose, http://docs.house.gov.\nThe House has several means by which it can choose to waive these availability requirements and call up, debate, and vote on a measure in a single calendar day even if the text of the measure was not made available prior to consideration. These include (1) considering a measure under the suspension of the rules procedure or by unanimous consent, (2) adopting a special rule that waives the 72-hour requirement, (3) adopting a special rule that waives the one-day requirement for another special rule, and (4) convening a second legislative day on the same calendar day. Waiving availability requirements allows the House to act quickly when necessary, such as near the end of a session."], "input": "\tAvailability Requirements in House Rules\n\nThe rules of the House of Representatives generally grant Members an opportunity to review legislative measures by governing the length of time the measures must be made available before being considered on the floor. Different House rules establish availability requirements for reported bills and resolutions, unreported bills and joint resolutions, conference committee reports, and special rules (resolutions reported by the Rules Committee intended to regulate floor consideration of a measure named in the resolution). \nUnder House rules, draft committee reports and unreported bills and joint resolutions are considered available under these rules if they are \"publicly available in electronic form at a location designated by the Committee on House Administration.\" Conference committee reports and accompanying joint explanatory statements are also considered available if they are in electronic form at such a location. It is not a requirement under the rule that the measures be available in the designated location. Instead, the House rule is meant to provide an additional means through which Members, congressional staff, and the general public can access these documents.\n\n\t\tReported Bills and Resolutions (Rule XIII, Clause 4(a))\n\nMeasures and other matters reported by committees may not be considered on the House floor until a draft of the committee report on the matter has been available for at least 72 hours. Specifically, the \"proposed text\" of the committee report\u2014except for any supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views\u2014must be made available. Under House Rule XI, clause 2(l), committee members are guaranteed two calendar days to submit supplemental or other views for inclusion in a committee report\u2014if notice of intent to file supplement views was given at the markup. However, the committee majority, before receiving such views, can make a draft of the committee report available and start the 72-hour clock. \nThe House rule exempts several kinds of measures specified in the rule, including resolutions reported by the Rules Committee. \n\n\t\tUnreported Bills and Joint Resolutions (Rule XXI, Clause 11)\n\nBills and joint resolutions that have not been reported by committee, and therefore are not accompanied by a written report, may also not be considered on the House floor unless the measure has been available for at least 72 hours. If a measure has not been reported by a committee, it is generally not eligible for floor consideration unless it is called up under a procedure that waives the requirement that it be reported. Such procedures are discussed below in the section on waiving the availability requirements.\n\n\t\tConference Reports (Rule XXII, Clause 8(a))\n\nThe House rule requires that before a conference report can be considered, its text and its accompanying joint explanatory statement must be available in the Congressional Record for 72 hours. Alternatively, the conference report can be considered if it has been made publicly available in electronic form at a location designated by the Committee on House Administration (currently http://docs.house.gov/ ) . In addition, copies of a conference report and the joint explanatory statement must be available for at least two hours prior to its consideration. \nAccording to the rule, this 72-hour availability requirement does not apply during the last six days of a session. In contemporary practice, however, it is difficult to implement this exception to the rule. Adjournment resolutions are usually not approved until very shortly before the adjournment takes place. This practice usually makes it impossible to know when the \"last six days\" of a session begin. Absent a resolution setting a future date for adjournment, the 72-hour rule applies even as the House nears the end of a session. The 72-hour availability requirement for conference reports would cease to apply only in the last six calendar days before the constitutional end of a session on January 3. Near the end of a session, however, the House sometimes agrees to special rules reported by the Rules Committee that waive the availability requirement. This is discussed below in the section on waiving availability requirements.\n\n\t\tSpecial Rules (Rule XIII, Clause 6(a))\n\nThe House frequently operates under special rules, or resolutions reported from the Rules Committee, which can waive any or all of the above rules . Special rules are required to lie over for one legislative day, which means the special rule cannot be reported and considered on the same legislative day. A legislative day is not necessarily a calendar day. A legislative day begins the first time the House meets after an adjournment and ends when the House adjourns again. Because the House typically adjourns at the end of a calendar day, legislative and calendar days usually coincide.\nRule XIII also provides several exceptions to the layover requirement for special rules. First, a special rule may be considered the same day it is presented if it proposes only to waive the rules mandating that committee reports and conference reports be available for 72 hours. If the rule also sets the terms for the consideration of the matter, perhaps by waiving points of order, then the rule is required to lie over for one legislative day.\nSecond, a special rule may be considered the same day it is presented to the House in the last three days of a session. In modern practice, as mentioned above, the House rarely agrees to an adjournment date far in advance, usually making it impossible to know when \"the last three days\" begin.\nThird, the one-day layover requirement for special rules can be waived if two-thirds of the Members voting agree to the waiver (a quorum being present). In addition, as discussed below, the Rules Committee may report a special rule that waives the one-day layover requirement for subsequent special rules.\n\n\tWaiving the Availability Requirements in the Rules\n\nThe House has several means for waiving its rules when it wishes to act expeditiously. For example, the House may set aside any of its availability requirements by unanimous consent. It may also call up and agree to a bill or conference report that has not met the availability requirements by a two-thirds vote to suspend the rules. As previously mentioned, according to Rule XIII, clause 6(a)(1), the one-day layover requirement for a special rule can be waived by two-thirds of the Members voting.\nThe House can also waive the availability requirements by a simple majority. If a majority of the House desires to do so, the House can vote on a measure the same calendar day that the text was made available to Members. The House usually does this by agreeing to two special rules, as explained below. It may also achieve the same result by convening for two legislative days on the same calendar day in the manner also described below.\n\n\t\tWaiving Availability Requirements by Special Rule\n\nThe Rules Committee may report a special rule that waives the 72-hour availability requirement for bills, resolutions, or conference reports. A rule only waiving the availability requirement can be presented and called up on the same day. Special rules, however, often set the terms for considering a measure as well. A special rule for the consideration of a measure might waive the 72-hour availability requirement but also structure the amending process. Such a rule would be required to lie over for one legislative day (unless this requirement was waived by a two-thirds vote). Similarly, a rule for the consideration of a conference report often waives points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. Under current House rules, that special rule is also required to lie over for one legislative day unless the requirement is waived by a two-thirds vote. In short, special rules only waiving the 72-hour availability requirement are not required to lie over for one legislative day.\nTo waive the one-day layover requirement of Rule XIII, clause 6(a), for a special rule, the Rules Committee may report a special rule that waives this requirement. The rule providing this waiver is subject to the same one-day layover requirement. If such a special rule is adopted, the House can then consider and adopt a special rule providing for the consideration of a measure later on the same legislative day. The special rule for the consideration of the measure can waive the 72-hour availability requirement for the measure. In this way, the House of Representatives, by majority vote, has the potential to call up, debate, and pass a measure in a single day even if the measure has not been made available prior to consideration. In order to achieve this result, however, the Rules Committee must have reported the additional special rule on the previous legislative day.\nIn summary, a simple majority of the House can call up, debate, and vote on a measure in a single calendar day, regardless of how long the text has been available, by taking the following steps:\nFirst, the House agrees to a special rule waiving the one-day layover requirement for any special rule for the consideration of a specified matter. (This rule is required to lie over for one legislative day.) Second, the House agrees to a separate special rule setting the terms of consideration of the measure and waiving any availability requirements for the measure itself. (This rule need not lie over for one legislative day. The first special rule waived the one-day layover requirement for this special rule.) Third, the House calls up, debates, and votes on the measure.\n\n\t\tCreating or Extending a Legislative Day\n\nAlthough the House rarely chooses to do so, it could agree to call up and consider a measure in a single calendar day by convening two legislative days in a single calendar day. It would do this by agreeing to a motion to adjourn for a brief period at some point during its session. Agreement to this motion would terminate the legislative day, and when the House returned from its brief adjournment pursuant to this motion, a new legislative day would begin.\nIf the Rules Committee presents a special rule before the House adjourns, the rule can be considered on the next legislative day regardless of how much time has elapsed. In other words, if a special rule were reported, and the House adjourned and then shortly thereafter reconvened, the special rule would have been available for one legislative day, meeting the layover requirement of the standing rule. The House could then consider the special rule that, among other things, could waive the 72-hour availability requirement for a resolution, bill, or conference report.\nFrom time to time, the House has also been known to recess after legislative business, but not adjourn, in order to give the Rules Committee time to complete and report a special rule. The rule could be reported very late or even early in the morning of the next calendar day. Regardless of whether or not it is the next calendar day when the rule is reported, if the House adjourns after it is reported, when it reconvenes it will be a new legislative day, and the layover requirement will be considered met.\n\n\t\tSpecial Rules Near the End of a Session\n\nIn the contemporary House, it is not uncommon for the Rules Committee to report several special rules at the end of a session that waive the availability requirements for subsequent special rules for the consideration of certain specified measures. In the past, the House has also agreed to resolutions reported by the Rules Committee near the end of a session that waived availability requirements in general.\nSpecial rules that waive availability requirements are sometimes referred to as \"same day rules.\" They are also sometimes referred to, particularly by their opponents, as \"martial law\" rules. The term has been used by Members of the House for at least 15 years, but it has not been applied consistently to any one type of special rule. It has been used, for example, to describe both special rules that waive the one-day layover requirement for subsequent special rules and to describe broad special rules that trigger some provisions of House rules and waive others for the remaining duration of a session.\nSupporters of end-of-session resolutions that waive availability requirements sometimes argue that these special rules are meant to achieve the same end as the standing rules that make certain provisions of House rules inapplicable during the final days of the session. As mentioned above, the 72-hour availability requirement for conference reports does not apply in the last six days of a session. The one-day layover requirement for special rules does not apply in the last three days of a session. In recent years, Congress has not agreed to a concurrent resolution setting an adjournment date until just before adjournment takes place. As a result, these standing rules are not triggered in the contemporary House. By agreeing to a same-day rule near the end of the session, the House can achieve the same end as the existing, but technically inapplicable, standing rules that waive availability requirements at the end of a session. Opponents of these end-of-session resolutions sometimes argue that all Representatives should be guaranteed some time to examine legislative proposals regardless of when they are presented during the course of a session.", "source": "gov_report_summ", "evaluation": "LLM"}
